As already pointed out, being Pro-<Specific War> shouldn’t be labeled Pro-War. I’m Anti-War by nature, but believe in a lot of causes America has fought for. Anyone who’s “Pro-War” in every circumstance has mental issues. I wouldn’t lump nonsqtr in with that crowd, but it needs to be pointed out.

I object to this entire premise. I don’t form political opinion and policy based on what I’m getting out of it. I base it on what does good for my country and for this world. If you find yourself more inline with the Left with regards to Iraq, this might sound foreign to you. I’m on the Right, I lead with my mind at the macro level and my heart at the personal level.

Yes. If terrorism was not the greatest external threat to America right now (which I think it is) this would not be the case.

If a draft were to be enacted, I would volunteer. Since that’s not happening, I’ll continue to praise the American soldiers and the cause they’ve VOLUNTEERED to fight for.

It’s a stupid and irrelevant question. We don’t have a mandatory armed service. If we have brave men and women who’re willing to put their life on the line to save the Iraqi people from a dictatorship, then let them do it. They don’t want your pity, they want your respect. If you don’t think Iraq is worth putting your life on the line, then don’t go, it has no relevance to the men and women who believe in the cause.

If you’re worried about your countries debt and infrastructure, then be grateful for our Democracy and vote. We all did that back in 2004 and we all know what the results were.

Consider that he didn’t start with “The US needs to get out of the Middle East,” but only that we need to pull out of Saudi Arabia. In 2003 when we did just that, and then it changed to “Get out of the entire Middle East.”

You claim if we leave the Middle East he’ll be satisfied. I think he’ll just move down his to-do list and denounce our non-Islamic government...and then continue what he does best...slaughter innocence.

If this statement was meant to be serious, I imagine your primary source of news is TV. If you want a broader picture of what’s really going on, expand your news media horizons.

____________________________________

Using the infamous “If we knew than, what we know now” statement, initially going into Iraq is a legitimate debatable, but it’s irrelevant to what should we do now. Since we don’t live in Neverneverland:

Saddam/Iraq: virtually all intelligence agencies said he had WMD, he wouldn’t allow full inspections, he’s had and used WMDs before, his treatment of his own citizens, chemical warfare, refusal to open up his totalitarian dictatorship, mass murder of his own citizens, double digit UN violations since first Gulf War, Clinton signing off on regime change, numerous torture and rape rooms, financial support to families of suicide bombers, etc...

Plus, the US was being directly hit with issues coming from the Middle East.

In ’93 our World Trade Center was bombed, we interpreted it as police enforcement, responded to the “attackers” not the “movement”, and ended up catching people like Ramzi Yousef, etc.

In ’96 they bombed the Khobar Towers, we interpreted it as police enforcement, responded to the “attackers” not the “movement,” and charged many extremists with murder, conspiracy, and other charges.

In ’98 they bomb the US embassies in Africa, we interpreted it as police enforcement, responded to the “attackers” not the “movement,” and Clinton tosses some cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan on the suspected related terrorists.

In ’99 we catch Ahmed Ressam at the Canadian border with nitroglycerin and timing devices, we interpreted it as police enforcement, responded to the “attackers” not the “movement.” Interrogated, tried, found guilty of planning and attempting to execute the bombing of LAX and sentenced to 22 years in prison.

In ’00 they bombed the USS Cole, we interpreted it as police enforcement, responded to the “attackers” not the “movement,” and nailed a couple suspects in a car and convicted others within the Yemen system who eventually escaped.

On September 11th, 2001 we have the second and final attacks on the World Trade Center towers. Devastation in American that can only be compared to the Pearl Harbor attacks. We decide police action is not enough and respond militarily. We are no longer ONLY going after the PEOPLE involved (Bin Laden), but we are also finally RESPONDING to the MOVEMENT.

You may think Iraq is not the most strategic hub to fight this ideology, you may think that our “post-regime change” strategies were completely under planned and under estimated, you may think that a population surrounded by Islamic governments do not want freedom and democracy, you may think that Bush is a dumb ass that’ll screw up anything he touches...whatever...

But to say that we should only focus on Bin Laden in Afghanistan will be making the same mistakes we did prior to 9/11. It is more than this one guy.

And whaddaya know...years of attacks: 93 to 96 = 3 years, 96 to 98 = 2 years, 98 to 99 = 1 year, 99 to 00 = 1 year, 00 to Sept 11th 2001 = 1 year....

2001 to 2007 = 6 years with no attack.

__________________
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

The Solution for Illegal Immigrants (Gray areas discussed throughout the thread)

**PERSONAL ATTACK DELETED** "The freedom to not be a victim of terrorist action". Tell that to our American kids that are over there with the feeling that the only way they are going to get to go home to America again is in a sealed coffin with a flag draped over it. Why don't all you pro-war nuts quit lying and admit that war make money and most of you all are war profiteers, especially Bush and Cheney.

I'm not trying to lecture you Catz, merely pointing out, that you're fear-mongering.

You know, "terrorists get funding". So what? They do that, and if they can't do it one way they'll do it another.

Jeez... you know, the Israelis get private money from US citizens so they can provide their settlers with machine guns - are we going to stop that too?

How about the Mexicans? They send "a lot" of money home, it's a sizable fraction of Mexico's national economy. Part of that, undoubtedly goes to drug dealers and coyotes. Are we going to stop that?

How about those darn corporations, that are sending money overseas, so they can do business with Iran and Hugo Chavez - how about we stop them too?

See what I'm sayin'?

Nonsqtr, that sure is a great comeback answer for Catzmeow. That fear-monger thought she knew more about funneling money than you did. Who got the hilarious last laugh? [you got one from me also on Catzmeow}

Whoever volunteers to.


Democracy ensures everyone pays their fair share. Because democracy gets to decide what "fair" is.



1) Not a single person in Iraq is a kid. You have to be an adult to serve in Iraq. They arent kids.

2) Every single one of those adults volunteered willingly to do what they are doing now. They all knew the risks and chose to accept those risks.



How did you determine we are lying about our motives?


Warning people about a real threat is fear mongering?


So we should just give up trying to stop them from getting funding...is that your solution?


The Israelis are also a democracy being assaulted on all sides by enemies unwilling to compromise. THAT is why they get funding from us.

And the Israelis are not the ones resorting to terrorist tactics.


Good idea. I support cutting off all economic activity with all non-democracies. But I got outvoted.


And he managed to make his point without resorting to petty insults like you did.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

It isn't "fear-mongering" to ask for someone to define their terms.

There are several types of "support" for terrorism. There are those who are willing to engage in direct actions. There are those who are willing to stand on the sidelines and cheer. There are those who funnel arms and funds. Where do you, non, draw the line on support? Because it is impossible to have this discussion without defining what a "supporter" is. Suppose that "terrorism" were football. Would the team exist without its fans? Would it exist without funding? Would it exist without coaching?

It's difficult to make terrorist actions a workable without the INFRASTRUCTURE to support those actions. Consider, for instance, numerous terrorist acts that have been committed in European nations by Islamic terrorists. There are the terrorists who have committed the acts. There are the people who have funded them to create weapons. There are the sources of weaponry. There are sources of fradulent documents. There are sources of basic necessities like food, housing, etc. There are sources of communications equipment. There are those who develop the plans of action, but don't actually carry those plans out. So, if you want to get rid of terrorist acts and those who commit them, you also need to eliminate the infrastructure that supports those actions.

You aren't going to find any moral inconsistency from me. If American citizens/corporations or visitors (I'm not sure exactly what to call illegals present in our borders) are funding illegal activities, anywhere in the world, they should be tried and prosecuted for it. End of story.

And, I don't believe we should be giving funds to Israel, AT ALL, for weapons purchases. They should be self-sustainable or cease to exist. I don't believe that what the Israeli government does to protect it's borders is accurately labeled as terrorism. However, providing west bank settlers with machine guns to start conflicts, maintain long-standing conflicts, and basically violate their own government's laws, IS terrorism.

Does that help to clarify?

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

All right, I'm hearing you guys.

Yeah, I'm think we can "all" agree, right, that there's a threat from these terrorist fanatics. No question there. There is a threat, and it's serious. These guys like to kill people for no reason, so yeah - I'd say that's definitely serious.

"How serious is it"? Hmm.... well, I suppose that's where we might begin to differ.

How I kinda look at this, is "relative to all the other threats out there". I mean, the "given" is, that we only have "limited resources", right?

We only have "so many dollars", and "so much time", and so on - so, we gotta kinda allocate them where they count, right?

I mean, to me, this "war on terror" is almost like the "war on drugs", it's just a black hole for money. You can't stop that stuff, EVER, the best you can do on a good day is bring some semblance of "mangeability" to it -

And I mean, if that's your viewpoint on this "terrorism" thing, then my statement would be, that it would kinda an "incorrect" way of looking at this thing - 'cause your "goal" here, is only manageability, whereas your stated goal, is to wipe this threat off the face of the planet, right?

And, see, I mean, this is where I have problems with the Neo-Cons, 'cause a lot of the theory around their worldview, is just fine - I mean, it all kinda makes sense, in an abstract "theoretical" kind of way - but unfortunately, this is not a "theoretical" world, that we live in - it's a very "real" world. You know, like, human nature doesn't change, just because you want it to, or just because it's "right", or anything else - so, my whole focus in this space, would be on the implementation.

So for instance, you made the argument about "infrastructure" - and that's certainly a valid argument and a good point - BUT, "other people use that infrastructure too". Right? So in other words, that infrastructure has other uses, other than terrorism. So if you take down the infrastructure, you're also affecting all these other things too. And, are you "really" going to stop terrorism, by trying to remove the infrastructure? Probably not, 'cause they'll find "some other way to do it", right?

See what I mean? I mean, the "thought process" around these issues, is the same, always, it seems, among the Neo-Cons. It's like, they get "halfway", to the point where they realize there's a problem, and they build a plan for how to deal with it, but then they stop. They don't think about the consequences of implementation, or the consequences of success or failure - they just start "doing stuff" 'cause "it's the right thing to do". Same thing with the wiretapping, right? And the torture, right? And all the rest of it, I mean it's the same pattern every time.

So, like - in this particular case here, when we're talking about the financial infrastructure for terrorist funding - well, I mean, you're talking stuff like Western Union, right? Everyone and their brother uses Western Union, right? So I mean, you could wiretap all the WU phone lines, and get a pair of eyes on every single transaction, but that takes a lot of resources, right? On the other hand, you could send one guy to infiltrate a terrorist cell, and that would be "efficient", and then you wouldn't have to muck with the infrastructure that supports all the "normal people" in their "normal lives" doing "normal things".

See what I mean?

Yeah, I'm with you on the terrorist-hatred thing, I just think we gotta be very careful in terms of how we go about addressing this issue, 'cause we don't want to be cutting off our nose to spite our face, right?