Recommended course of action

[CSM]

I always find relativist arguments amazing in their absurd one-sidedness. Somebody give a reason, the other accuses him of making excuses.

One man offers words of caution and taking precautions, he gets accused of paranoid fear-mongering.

I don't care WHAT the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist in the US is. If it's more than 0.0, it's too damned high.

He has already established that, by his metrics, a miniscule chance is acceptable. Also, at least six years since the last attack is also acceptable.

 

[CSM]

I sterilize my digestive tract with alcohol every weekend. Is THAT healthy, or what?

A very wise precaution I would say. Others would say ou are fear-mongering and shaking inyour boots over the possibility of digestive tract health issues.

 

[Annie]

Actually, comparing health issues to issues of national security and the like is a pretty big stretch anyway.

True, I was using the analogy though that most can get. Have you ever noticed how many of the anti anything are also the preachers of anything but religion?

 

[Gunny]

A very wise precaution I would say. Others would say ou are fear-mongering and shaking inyour boots over the possibility of digestive tract health issues.

That's definitely it. Gotta kill those germs, y'know!

 

[Gunny]

He has already established that, by his metrics, a miniscule chance is acceptable. Also, at least six years since the last attack is also acceptable.

It is not acceptable since it CAN be prevented.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets see.... Our border with mexico and Canada are as open as a sieve. It has already been shown that even in Canada terrorists can easily arrive and move to our country.

As to Mexico, an armed battalion could probably cross our border and go unnoticed until it hit some city or town. And before I hear the chorus of " its all Bush's fault" I suggest you check the position of the darling Liberals on protection and sealing of our border, much less any serious attempt to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. NO ONE in power really cares. And when they finally do it will be because of some horrendous attack.

As to Iraq, once again for the truly stupid... if we leave before the Government there can control its borders and its internal security we will be providing training grounds, oil revenue and incentive to terrorists every where. Further we will be telling countries that sponsor, give money and train terrorists that we are no threat to them. We will tell our allies that we are to cowardly to be depended on to help them when we can not even protect our own national interests.

 

[Annie]

Lets see.... Our border with mexico and Canada are as open as a sieve. It has already been shown that even in Canada terrorists can easily arrive and move to our country.

As to Mexico, an armed battalion could probably cross our border and go unnoticed until it hit some city or town. And before I hear the chorus of " its all Bush's fault" I suggest you check the position of the darling Liberals on protection and sealing of our border, much less any serious attempt to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. NO ONE in power really cares. And when they finally do it will be because of some horrendous attack.

As to Iraq, once again for the truly stupid... if we leave before the Government there can control its borders and its internal security we will be providing training grounds, oil revenue and incentive to terrorists every where. Further we will be telling countries that sponsor, give money and train terrorists that we are no threat to them. We will tell our allies that we are to cowardly to be depended on to help them when we can not even protect our own national interests.

True. Last time I went through Canadian border crossing most of the 'guards' were Arab. Why is that?

 

[Gunny]

Lets see.... Our border with mexico and Canada are as open as a sieve. It has already been shown that even in Canada terrorists can easily arrive and move to our country.

As to Mexico, an armed battalion could probably cross our border and go unnoticed until it hit some city or town. And before I hear the chorus of " its all Bush's fault" I suggest you check the position of the darling Liberals on protection and sealing of our border, much less any serious attempt to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. NO ONE in power really cares. And when they finally do it will be because of some horrendous attack.

As to Iraq, once again for the truly stupid... if we leave before the Government there can control its borders and its internal security we will be providing training grounds, oil revenue and incentive to terrorists every where. Further we will be telling countries that sponsor, give money and train terrorists that we are no threat to them. We will tell our allies that we are to cowardly to be depended on to help them when we can not even protect our own national interests.

As a person who lives in one of the first cities or towns that will be hit, you're damned-straight I watch my six at ALL times.

I got a real simple name for people who want to pretend bad guys don't exist ..."victim."

And as someone who has seen Muhammed walking down the street with his AK, as I am sure you have, I'm not giving any even breaks.

 

[maineman]

Might I suggest, that maineman makes a LOT of sense on this subject. Forget party talking points and rhetoric, what he suggest is right, and sensible.

why thank you!

 

[Gunny]

why thank you!

I'd have rep'd you for this because it DOES make sense:

If we leave Iraq and concentrate our military forces on the fight against islamic extremism instead of wasting lives and treasure trying to mediate a family feud between rival sects of Islam, we will be MORE safe, not less.

I just wasn't real keen on the rest.

 

[CSM]

I'd have rep'd you for this because it DOES make sense:



I just wasn't real keen on the rest.

Yup

 

[maineman]

As to Iraq, once again for the truly stupid... if we leave before the Government there can control its borders and its internal security we will be providing training grounds, oil revenue and incentive to terrorists every where. Further we will be telling countries that sponsor, give money and train terrorists that we are no threat to them. We will tell our allies that we are to cowardly to be depended on to help them when we can not even protect our own national interests.

That is just more bullshit. Iraq is going to crumble into violence whenever we leave.... and the country has NEVER been able to "control its borders" very well, even under Saddam.... the place has hundreds and hundreds of miles of desolate uninhabited borders.... and please explain to me the economic process that takes oil from the ground, pumps it to tankers in the Persian Gulf, sells it on the open market and the money goes to terrorists. Do you think that AQ is going to control Iraq's oilfields? Do you think that the indigenous sunnis and shiites in Iraq are going to give their oil revenues to the same guys who blow up their mosques? And if we left Iraq and came home and became isolationists, I would understand the "message" you claim we would send. But that is typical of the overly simplistic black and white child-like view of the world typified by Dubya and all his sycophants. No one is suggesting that we quit fighting islamic extremism...only that we STOP playing nursemaid in a sectarian family feud and actually START fighting islamic extremism.
I cannot begin to understand how anyone would think that refereeing a fight between sunnis and shiites that has been going on for 1200 years, flushing billions of dollars down the shitter, suffering 29K casualties, spinning our wheels for five years while AQ has gotten just as strong as it was before 9/11...how all of that can be considered to be in our "national interest" is so profoundly stupid, it borders on treasonous.

 

[Larkinn]

I always find relativist arguments amazing in their absurd one-sidedness. Somebody give a reason, the other accuses him of making excuses.

One man offers words of caution and taking precautions, he gets accused of paranoid fear-mongering.

I don't care WHAT the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist in the US is. If it's more than 0.0, it's too damned high.

That is NOT caution and taking precautions. That is paranoia. Advising someone to move because they live near a tourist attraction (say Mount Rushmore) is stupid. Sorry, but SD ain't going to get hit by terrorists.

If we were to take that level of "caution" and apply it to health, it would be upon the line of advising someone to exercise 3 hours a day, grow their own food (so no pesiticides...you can never be sure), and have a raw foods diet. Err, sure, but you can eat decently without going crazy over it, just as I can be decently safe without going crazy about it. Those recommending that I change my entire life so I become just the teensiest bit safety, are pussies.

originally posted by CSM
Actually, comparing health issues to issues of national security and the like is a pretty big stretch anyway.

Not at all. Death is death.

It is not acceptable since it CAN be prevented.

Why does this always only seem to apply with military deaths, but when its health, or cars, or whatever its "omg the government is interfering with us"?

As to Iraq, once again for the truly stupid... if we leave before the Government there can control its borders and its internal security we will be providing training grounds, oil revenue and incentive to terrorists every where. Further we will be telling countries that sponsor, give money and train terrorists that we are no threat to them. We will tell our allies that we are to cowardly to be depended on to help them when we can not even protect our own national interests.

Henny Penny the sky is falling! No, sorry, it won't be as bad as you think. It won't be great, and its certainly not ideal, but thats because of the deaths that will happen IN Iraq, not the ones that will happen out of it. But those are ok, right?

Besides all of this...you are forgetting something. With a proven track record of failure, in and out of Iraq, what makes you think that the US forces remaining in there will be able to stabilize the country? Considering the US has already fucked up Iraq so badly, what makes you think we can now fix it? Because if its going to end in destablization anyway, its better to leave now and let the process get on with, and over.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is just more bullshit. Iraq is going to crumble into violence whenever we leave.... and the country has NEVER been able to "control its borders" very well, even under Saddam.... the place has hundreds and hundreds of miles of desolate uninhabited borders.... and please explain to me the economic process that takes oil from the ground, pumps it to tankers in the Persian Gulf, sells it on the open market and the money goes to terrorists. Do you think that AQ is going to control Iraq's oilfields? Do you think that the indigenous sunnis and shiites in Iraq are going to give their oil revenues to the same guys who blow up their mosques? And if we left Iraq and came home and became isolationists, I would understand the "message" you claim we would send. But that is typical of the overly simplistic black and white child-like view of the world typified by Dubya and all his sycophants. No one is suggesting that we quit fighting islamic extremism...only that we STOP playing nursemaid in a sectarian family feud and actually START fighting islamic extremism.
I cannot begin to understand how anyone would think that refereeing a fight between sunnis and shiites that has been going on for 1200 years, flushing billions of dollars down the shitter, suffering 29K casualties, spinning our wheels for five years while AQ has gotten just as strong as it was before 9/11...how all of that can be considered to be in our "national interest" is so profoundly stupid, it borders on treasonous.

I Guess mister "knowledge" missed the stories about how AQ was taking the gas and fuel oil sent to the regions they controlled and selling it in Jordan and else where. I will assume he just "forgot" about that.

As for borders, Iraq must have a military capable of resisting Iranian or Syrian aggression or Iran will just be telling the middle east what to do and they will be doing it for fear of invasion. I must assume a Naval Officer can not quite grasp the concept of power projection on the ground.

 

[trobinett]

Its clear to me, the "players" haven't been able to figure it out in 1200 years, I seriously doubt well be able to do it in ten, twenty, a hundred..........

Lets have our military do what it does best, what its trained to do, what our young men and women volunteered to do, FIGHT TERROR.

Allowing our warriors to be picked off one at a time by suicide bombers, for a culture, and a people, that just don't "get it", seems misguided.

Where am I going wrong?

 

[maineman]

I Guess mister "knowledge" missed the stories about how AQ was taking the gas and fuel oil sent to the regions they controlled and selling it in Jordan and else where. I will assume he just "forgot" about that.

chicken feed and you know it. Do you really think that the shiites will allow AQ to exert any significant influence over the economy of Iraq?

As for borders, Iraq must have a military capable of resisting Iranian or Syrian aggression or Iran will just be telling the middle east what to do and they will be doing it for fear of invasion. I must assume a Naval Officer can not quite grasp the concept of power projection on the ground.

We doomed ourselves to having Iraq fall under the sphere of influence of Iran the minute we toppled the sunni dictator that was the only thing effectively standing in their way. The shiite community in Iraq has a natural affinity and cultural allegiance to Iran. Do you really want to keep a standing army in Iraq until the end of time to prevent such a natural occurence? It was YOUR stupid president who told us we would establish a democracy in Iraq.... if the majority of the population is shiite, what the fuck did you THINK was going to happen? And Syria is a small time player in the region compared to Iran....but we have already screwed the pooch with containment of Iranian regional hegemony. We should write that off and go after the guys who attacked us and who still want to attack us.

Eiuther we talk to Iran and talk to the other countries in the region or we get on with the ill-fated business of trying to convince muslims not to kill us by killing more muslims. It has been such a marvelous strategy thus far.

 

[pegwinn]

Its clear to me, the "players" haven't been able to figure it out in 1200 years, I seriously doubt well be able to do it in ten, twenty, a hundred..........

Lets have our military do what it does best, what its trained to do, what our young men and women volunteered to do, FIGHT TERROR.

Allowing our warriors to be picked off one at a time by suicide bombers, for a culture, and a people, that just don't "get it", seems misguided.

Where am I going wrong?

Fuckin A. Cool Points coming your way.

First we need to take off the gloves in Iraq and simply get it done. The other nations need to be on notice that from now on the dog in the fight is rabid.

 

[DeadCanDance]

That is just more bullshit. Iraq is going to crumble into violence whenever we leave.... and the country has NEVER been able to "control its borders" very well, even under Saddam.... the place has hundreds and hundreds of miles of desolate uninhabited borders.... and please explain to me the economic process that takes oil from the ground, pumps it to tankers in the Persian Gulf, sells it on the open market and the money goes to terrorists. Do you think that AQ is going to control Iraq's oilfields? Do you think that the indigenous sunnis and shiites in Iraq are going to give their oil revenues to the same guys who blow up their mosques? And if we left Iraq and came home and became isolationists, I would understand the "message" you claim we would send. But that is typical of the overly simplistic black and white child-like view of the world typified by Dubya and all his sycophants. No one is suggesting that we quit fighting islamic extremism...only that we STOP playing nursemaid in a sectarian family feud and actually START fighting islamic extremism.

I cannot begin to understand how anyone would think that refereeing a fight between sunnis and shiites that has been going on for 1200 years, flushing billions of dollars down the shitter, suffering 29K casualties, spinning our wheels for five years while AQ has gotten just as strong as it was before 9/11...how all of that can be considered to be in our "national interest" is so profoundly stupid, it borders on treasonous.

 

[maineman]

thank you DCD.... I appreciate the feedback

 

[Chips Rafferty]

True, I was using the analogy though that most can get. Have you ever noticed how many of the anti anything are also the preachers of anything but religion?

Ever notice that the paranoid curs calling for concrete houses and killing "them" "over there" are preachers of religion?