Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We aren't at war with Vietnam. Maybe you missed that. It's been over for decades. Just like the crusades. Over, done with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
It goes hand in hand with the myriad of things that you don't know but keep professing an intimate knowledge of with only your opinions and lies to be believed and of worth.
What is really shameful is the lack of understanding illustrated by these posts.
Or perhaps people really do believe that being stuck in conflicts without end that cost the lives of countless Americans is a good thing.
If so, I really do wish that they would just come right out and say so instead of pretending to not understand why the OP chose the analogy he did.
Dusty: You say there is ZERO connection? The problem here is that be refusing to see this simple connection we waste our resources to fight terrorism. Fighting terror is much easier when we know who we are fighting. Until we see Christians, Hindus, Jews, or others terrorizing Americans (especially here in the US) then we are taking our eye off the ball. The fact that they are muslim is significant because they all are killing in the name of Islam. It is not just a coincidence.
There is 0 connection. The Boston Bombers had no affiliation with any known terrorists organization. This means that fighting ISIS does not prevent anything.
Yes, they were Muslims. What's your point? Are you saying all Muslims must be irradiated? Because there are Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. And hell, even if they sympathize with them, they can't be punished for it. Only actions can warrant punishment. Inaction or quite support, while not good, is not deserving of death.
So what are you suggesting. We go in to the Middle East and offer them what we offered the Native Americans? Become God fearing Christians or die (which is precisely what Jesus would want...)?
Let the Middle East be alone. History has proven that we can't help them, at least not the way we've been doing. We stabilized Iraq for a while, but when we left it fell apart. It was a failure. The whole thing. If we truly cared about anything in the Middle East, we would work with them. Instead, we replaced their dictator with our own; the US military.
The Middle East has fallen behind even further since our involvement. Cheap oil is not enough reason to stay. We need to let the Middle Eastern nations handle this problem of radical Islam. It's the only way the region will stabilize and it's the only way the threat of radical Islamic terrorism will stop.
But again, I don't buy into the mantra that we're their to spread democracy. If that were true, the US wouldn't need to oversee Iraq's 'democracy.' A democracy is self sufficient; Iraq's was not. We're there because we (being the government and corporations) benefit from the destabilization of the region, bringing in cheap exported oil and manufacturing of weapons. I refuse to support these actions. They are selfish and counter productive to the world's progress.
There is 0 connection. The Boston Bombers had no affiliation with any known terrorists organization. This means that fighting ISIS does not prevent anything.
Yes, they were Muslims. What's your point? Are you saying all Muslims must be irradiated? Because there are Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. And hell, even if they sympathize with them, they can't be punished for it. Only actions can warrant punishment. Inaction or quite support, while not good, is not deserving of death.
So what are you suggesting. We go in to the Middle East and offer them what we offered the Native Americans? Become God fearing Christians or die (which is precisely what Jesus would want...)?
Let the Middle East be alone. History has proven that we can't help them, at least not the way we've been doing. We stabilized Iraq for a while, but when we left it fell apart. It was a failure. The whole thing. If we truly cared about anything in the Middle East, we would work with them. Instead, we replaced their dictator with our own; the US military.
The Middle East has fallen behind even further since our involvement. Cheap oil is not enough reason to stay. We need to let the Middle Eastern nations handle this problem of radical Islam. It's the only way the region will stabilize and it's the only way the threat of radical Islamic terrorism will stop.
But again, I don't buy into the mantra that we're their to spread democracy. If that were true, the US wouldn't need to oversee Iraq's 'democracy.' A democracy is self sufficient; Iraq's was not. We're there because we (being the government and corporations) benefit from the destabilization of the region, bringing in cheap exported oil and manufacturing of weapons. I refuse to support these actions. They are selfish and counter productive to the world's progress.
Thanks for the detailed response. I can agree with some of your points, but Your rationale has a few holes in it.
1. Were you in America on 9-11? This is what the war on terror is all about. I can accept the fact that the middle east will continue to fight each other no matter what we do. But, when middle eastern terrorists (or their symapthizers) target the US then we have problems. I want stop terror before it comes to the US. Your wait and see approach is what leads to 9-11, Boston marathon bombings, & ft Hood shootings.
2. Of course not all muslims are terrorists. But most terrorists are muslim--thats a problem. So, we need to crack down on terrorists, and do something BEFORE they strike us. Some of this may be happening now, but we obviously missed 20 of them on 9-11. Most of those terrorists were on some sort of watch list.
3. The US is pumping more oil now: We need to continue to pump more oil, refine more, and keep more oil here in the US. If OPEC wants to play games then we will be self sufficient. I like my $2 gas!
I wish one (or a collection) of you gung-ho ISIS-fighter wannabes would be gracious enough to explain to our lurking audience why it is that America is obligated to go in and try to put a stop to this monkey business.
Please.
to stop terrorism from spreading to the US. Do you want ISIS or Al-Quada to gain more power? How many times do we have to hear them say that they hate the US before we believe it. Look at Benghazi as a recent example.
Thanks for the detailed response. I can agree with some of your points, but Your rationale has a few holes in it.
1. Were you in America on 9-11? This is what the war on terror is all about. I can accept the fact that the middle east will continue to fight each other no matter what we do. But, when middle eastern terrorists (or their symapthizers) target the US then we have problems. I want stop terror before it comes to the US. Your wait and see approach is what leads to 9-11, Boston marathon bombings, & ft Hood shootings.
2. Of course not all muslims are terrorists. But most terrorists are muslim--thats a problem. So, we need to crack down on terrorists, and do something BEFORE they strike us. Some of this may be happening now, but we obviously missed 20 of them on 9-11. Most of those terrorists were on some sort of watch list.
3. The US is pumping more oil now: We need to continue to pump more oil, refine more, and keep more oil here in the US. If OPEC wants to play games then we will be self sufficient. I like my $2 gas!
1) yes. I was young, but I remember 9/11 well enough. I don't want you to mistake my feelings on this issue as dismissing the severity of 9/11. That's not the case. But I don't think what you're talking about would prevent what happened. Our actions in the Middle East angered Bin Laden; he reacted (albeit in an extreme way). We could have prevented it by minding our own business.
And the Boston Bombing would have happened anyway (probably; obviously we're dealing with hypotheticals; any change in circumstance could have made that play out differently), regardless of action or inaction in the Middle East. They were domestic terrorists. Are treatment of ISIS or Al Qaeda or whoever would not have done much to deter them. In theory, it could have provoked them, but who knows.
2) Is that actually true though? Are most terrorists actually Muslim? According to this study, 90% of terrorists acts committed in the US were not by Muslims:
And I'm fairly certain in the last 50 years, even if we narrow terrorism down to something like suicide bombings, most were committed by nationalists (secularists/communists/statists, etc.). And only about 1/3 of those suicide attacks were even committed by religious radicals, and only a fraction of that group was Muslim.
So, if 6% of terrorists acts aimed at the US are Muslim, why are they getting more attention that the other 94%?
3) The US needs to adjust it's policy regarding energy by not dumping large sums of subsidies to the oil industry. It needs to self sustain. I have no problem with it's continues existence, but true economic progress requires us to open the energy industry up to other sources. But that's another topic.
Most oil in the US is domestic. About 12% comes from the Middle East, while nearly 40% is domestic. But even so, our reasons for being in the Middle East are mainly economic. There's cheap oil, money to be made through the manufacturing of weapons and other military equipment (like medical supplies and vehicles), as well as control of drugs in the Middle East, as many terrorists organizations are funded by the distribution of opium.
What is really shameful is the lack of understanding illustrated by these posts.
Or perhaps people really do believe that being stuck in conflicts without end that cost the lives of countless Americans is a good thing.
If so, I really do wish that they would just come right out and say so instead of pretending to not understand why the OP chose the analogy he did.
What is really shameful is that some would equate past wars in a different part of the world without truly understanding them is considered valid by those such as you.
Conflicts tend to be prolonged because our politicians lack the guts to actually do what is necessary to end them. Witness the current administration admitting right up front that their actions (never admitting to be a war) is going to last at least ten years.
Personally, I believe ISIS deserves A-bomb, but when you talk about "if WE do not fight for freedom, then nobody else will" I think you should define the word "we". To me, I am not part of the "we", the combat Marines, airman, soldiers are the "we" you are talking about. Sending other people's brothers, sons, daughters, husbands, boyfriends, friends to fight with these savages is easier said by people who do not have to make the ultimate sacrifices.
When politicians talk about "no boots on the ground", you have to wonder just exactly what that pledge really means. Why should anybody find that reassuring. It’s a pledge that seems to have everything to do with politics and little to do with the imperatives of strategy or security.
The pair of combat boots, have already gathered dust in so many dangerous places, right now, maybe the "boots" should stay exactly where they are. At HOME.
I agree that the politicians are to blame. However, that doesn't mean that we should not fight terrorism. Our military members are ready to fight, but our politicians are holding them back. Thats why I support a zillion air strikes! Obviously there has to be a strategy, but you can see my point.
1) yes. I was young, but I remember 9/11 well enough. I don't want you to mistake my feelings on this issue as dismissing the severity of 9/11. That's not the case. But I don't think what you're talking about would prevent what happened. Our actions in the Middle East angered Bin Laden; he reacted (albeit in an extreme way). We could have prevented it by minding our own business.
And the Boston Bombing would have happened anyway (probably; obviously we're dealing with hypotheticals; any change in circumstance could have made that play out differently), regardless of action or inaction in the Middle East. They were domestic terrorists. Are treatment of ISIS or Al Qaeda or whoever would not have done much to deter them. In theory, it could have provoked them, but who knows.
2) Is that actually true though? Are most terrorists actually Muslim? According to this study, 90% of terrorists acts committed in the US were not by Muslims:
And I'm fairly certain in the last 50 years, even if we narrow terrorism down to something like suicide bombings, most were committed by nationalists (secularists/communists/statists, etc.). And only about 1/3 of those suicide attacks were even committed by religious radicals, and only a fraction of that group was Muslim.
So, if 6% of terrorists acts aimed at the US are Muslim, why are they getting more attention that the other 94%?
3) The US needs to adjust it's policy regarding energy by not dumping large sums of subsidies to the oil industry. It needs to self sustain. I have no problem with it's continues existence, but true economic progress requires us to open the energy industry up to other sources. But that's another topic.
Most oil in the US is domestic. About 12% comes from the Middle East, while nearly 40% is domestic. But even so, our reasons for being in the Middle East are mainly economic. There's cheap oil, money to be made through the manufacturing of weapons and other military equipment (like medical supplies and vehicles), as well as control of drugs in the Middle East, as many terrorists organizations are funded by the distribution of opium.
Even Al Gore would question those "stats" regarding terror strikes. Again, 9-11, DC navy yard, ft hood, OKC beheading. These are muslim extremists who are killing in the name of Islam. Yes, there other crazies who need to be stopped... But, the muslim extremists have shown to be willing & able to carry out deadly attacks. Why are we forcing old white grandmas to take off their shoes at the airport while we just "watch" terrorists get on an airplane and hijack it? We need to get serious about stopping real terrorists!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
