50 replies [Last post]
CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Another "Bright Shining Lie"

War is a weapon of mass destruction and should be avoided at all costs. Diplomacy backed by a very powerful army and the will to use it to ensure total annihilation of one's enemy is a very effective tool.

But, for diplomacy to work, even under the above description works only when your enemy fears destruction. I think AQ, Iran and other radical Muslims do not fear death and destruction. So, diplomacy is not really an option.

Further, war should only be waged when it is for the benefit of our country. We should not be the world's police nor should we be the ultimate truth and right sowing democracy upon barren ground.

Afghanastan was right; Iraq is wrong. Yes, it makes sense to take the battle to the enemy, but when you fight a war, you fight it in a manner that kills as many of the enemy as you can and reduce your causalties.

When you wage war against a country the entire country must be your enemy. To do otherwise compromises your tactics. We are fighting on the ground in Iraq when we should have just bombed the country into submission and then moved onto the next battle in the war on terrorism.

In wars there are many battles, but one war. Here we are engaged in the war of terrorism and in the war in Iraq. Iraq should have been just a battle to fight and not a war unto itself.

On the subject of Iran - first why can't they have nukes? Are we God deciding who can have nukes and who can't? We have them, Europe has them, Pakistan and India have them so why can't Iran?

Do I think it is a good idea for them to have them? No! They are our enemy. What we need to do is to be truthful to ourselves. Admit that we have no right to dictate to Iran, but that we believe we are morally superior to them, that they are our enemy and we will do what WE believe is in our best interest.

Nothing wrong with that attitude, but if we adopt it, then we should be honest about it.

And, why do we have to fight a traditional war? Why don't we use a drone to explode a small nuke by one of their power plants? Cause chaos and destruction and let the world believe it was a nuke accident caused by Iran?

Sure some people are squirming right now - my goodness he is a mad man to suggest such a thing. No, I am just honest and pragmatic.

If we believe that Iran's nuke program is bad for our country, if we believe they will not bow to international power and that war may be inevitable, then why not use the most advanced technology and war strategies to achieve our goal and minimize US causalties?

It is clear to me that the first thing we need to do is to end our dependence on foreign oil. Until we do that we can't really negotiate effectively with the "pusher man."

I am sure I've written plenty here for everyone to disagree withy Big smile

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Another "Bright Shining Lie"

We did not invade Iraq to destroy AL Qaeda. We invaded Iraq to enforce UN resolutions. It was after We removed Hussein that foreign "insurgents" picked up arms and fought against Iraq and the US to try and establish another radical Muslim regime such as the one in Iran, with full and total support of Iran. It was then and only then that it became a war on terror. To say that there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq is not a correct statement. Any ties to Al Qaeda would make Al Qaeda involved in Iraq.

CVC is right on the money with this statement:
"When you wage war against a country the entire country must be your enemy. To do otherwise compromises your tactics. We are fighting on the ground in Iraq when we should have just bombed the country into submission and then moved onto the next battle in the war on terrorism"

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Another "Bright Shining Lie"

CVC I think you missed it. We are now in direct talks with Iran. Flip Flop.

I like your idea of just bombing a whole country because you disagree with a few people in it. Might be terrists everywhere, maybe you should make a list of people to blow up. I assume you mean kids too.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Another "Bright Shining Lie"
civetcat wrote:
CVC I think you missed it. We are now in direct talks with Iran. Flip Flop.

I like your idea of just bombing a whole country because you disagree with a few people in it. Might be terrists everywhere, maybe you should make a list of people to blow up. I assume you mean kids too.

I don't get your point about the flip flop - has nothing to do with what I wrote. Flip flop - do you mean Barrack's opinion on dealing with them? Or something else? You really need to better articulate your point.

Typical response on the rest - distort what someone says to make your point. I didn't say bomb a country because we disagree with a few people in it. How ridculous of you to suggest something like that.

My point is if we are at the point that war is the only option, then yes, we should use every military tool available including bombing the country.

I suppose you were agains the bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII? Children and citizens died, but that this the harsh reality of war. You either fight to win with everything you have or you end up with a Viet Nam or Iraq.

If the transgressions of the opposing country are not serious enough to warrant its destruction then they are not serious enough to wage a war and some other means of resolution should be sought.

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
Another "Bright Shining Lie"

I say we hug everybody, everywhere and maybe the peace unicorns will come out. Reality is that innocent people get killed in a war. But, these countries leaders realize this and hide behind the innocents to do their deeds. It is unfotunate but it is a reality that we have to be able to deal with.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Another "Bright Shining Lie"

My appologies CVC, I assumed since you mentioned Iran as being someone that we couldn't practice diplomacy with that you would be familiar with the US policy towards them since the year 2001 and the dramatic turnabout this summer.

Since the axis of evil speach the attitude towards Iran has been confrontational to a degree. The disaster in Iraq and the ouster of Rumsfeld left the neocons with few advocates within the cabinet. Rice is more of a pragmatist, Cheney is lying low, Rove is up to his ears in indictments. Two weeks ago she announced a high level meating with Iran.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/18/2008-07-18_us_just_t... We are using diplomacy with them.

When someone give in and reversed policy 180 degrees it's called a flip flop. I actually don't care about the 180 degree turn. Recognising when you have made a mistake and changing your direction is a good thing.

Of course Obama was ridiculed for praposing just such an action. Just like a timetable (surrender and appeasment)

I think Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't doing so well with the Mahkdee army, who by the way we are paying not to fight. Iran also hates Al Qaeda.

On killing civilians.

I think the US goes to greater lengths and is more succsesfull in reducing civilian casualties than any other country in the world right now. We also attempt to win wars while even reducing our apponents military casualties. We value all human life. It was the "we should have just bombed the country into submission" part that didn't sit right with me. On most other points though I am in agreement.

regarding WWII, we were testing new methods then. Dresden had little affect on Germany, many suggest the second bomb on Japan wasn't needed. Regardless, without the bomb on Japan I would probaly not be here today. My dad was a combat Marine on Okinowa, Japan was next.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Another "Bright Shining Lie"
Quote:
My appologies CVC, I assumed since you mentioned Iran as being someone that we couldn't practice diplomacy with that you would be familiar with the US policy towards them since the year 2001 and the dramatic turnabout this summer. "

I understand our policy to Iran, I just didn't understand your post. You can practice diplomacy with anyone or any country, but the key, as I am sure you'll agree, is effective diplomacy. Last I heard, Iran said they are going forward with their nuke program - so much for diplomacy.

Do I agree we should shut down dialogue - heck no. We should keep on talking even if it is just to know what your enemy is up to. Diplomacy first, war last.

Think about diplomacy and Iran. If you were Iran, would you acquiesce to the demands of the US? So, how effective do you think diplomacy is going to be. One side has to be willing to compromise and I don't see either willing to do it.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Another "Bright Shining Lie"

I always get a kick out of libs who go on about where Al Qaeda was before we invaded and where they are now. If they're so good at knowing where they are, why didn't Clinton get them during his 8 years in office?

It's easy being an armchair quarterback claiming to be a genius by watching what others are doing and claiming you'd do the opposite of what they're doing if it turns out to be unpopular.

Libs have absolutely no clue about confronting aggression or fighting a war. None whatsoever.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1789
Another "Bright Shining Lie"
expatriate wrote:
I always get a kick out of libs who go on about where Al Qaeda was before we invaded and where they are now. If they're so good at knowing where they are, why didn't Clinton get them during his 8 years in office?

It's easy being an armchair quarterback claiming to be a genius by watching what others are doing and claiming you'd do the opposite of what they're doing if it turns out to be unpopular.

Libs have absolutely no clue about confronting aggression or fighting a war. None whatsoever.

My position regarding the war, Afghan, Iraq, has been the same for the past eight years so really no hindsight analysis here.

If you consider the decisions the current admin has made in relation to war fighting the past eight years please don't be offended if I don't ever advise anyone get your opinion in that arena.

You think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, have been brilliant military strategists????????

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
Another "Bright Shining Lie"
SoCoKHntr wrote:
My position regarding the war, Afghan, Iraq, has been the same for the past eight years so really no hindsight analysis here.

If you consider the decisions the current admin has made in relation to war fighting the past eight years please don't be offended if I don't ever advise anyone get your opinion in that arena.

You think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, have been brilliant military strategists????????

Im sure Ill be sorry but what would you have done?

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Yellow Fluid in Hind Quarters.devkurf707/03/2010 22:55 pm
What's you favorite part about Trapping?Hiker3206/05/2006 14:20 pm
Anyone Have A Plains Tag?HeavyC110/28/2008 15:56 pm
Bond Rating Cutexpatriate509/13/2011 11:29 am
Camera Land's Deal of the Day 11/6/2013 - Zeissgr8fuldoug011/06/2013 08:19 am