What would you say to change in tack?

[eric]

Is trying to eliminate terrorists using force a more realistic aim

Without question !!!

Going one step further, I totally agree with the policy that if you harbor them, you are one of them and are our enemy. In which case you will be dealt with !

 

[UhihaJax]

Locations are very nice but they do little to define the actual debate.
I don't care about how debaters feel, I want to know what people KNOW. Information is cruicial to everything, personal circumstance is irrelevant to this aim.

They may do more to describe perhaps why people feel the way they do but this detracts from the debate being made, which you all seem to be very keen to do.

 

[Annie]

I agree Eric. That is why I think Iran should be next on the agenda. They are harboring bin Laden son, Taleban, and al Queda refugees. They are surpressing their own youth protests. They are aiding and funding and reinforcing al Sadr in Iraq.

 

[eric]

And what facts do you have to show us. So far all I have seen is opinion.

 

[UhihaJax]

Then your looking in the wrong place.

Oaklahoma anyone?

It doesn't require a huge operation to perform a terrorist attack, terrorist cells can be tiny. How will you find them all, and howe will you prevent new ones from forming in your own backyard?

 

[eric]

So using your logic, there will always be a group you can not appease no matter how hard you try, therefore there will always be terrorism !

 

[UhihaJax]

Do you not think that invading further countries will increase the amount of Muslims coverting into fundamental terrorism?

Why not invade Saudi Arabia, they harbour the whole Bin Laden family....

 

[Annie]

Actually I for one am still waiting for the historical write up on OKC. There are fingerprints that point to Sadaam all over it. May be coincidence, but I'm not a big believer in such.

 

[eric]

Why not invade Saudi Arabia, they harbour the whole Bin Laden family

Did ! That is the magical word. If they still did I would be all for it.

By the way what the hell is fundamental terrorism ?

 

[Annie]

I think SA should be on the table, on the other hand they are so corrupt that their people will tear them down and then we will be left with the fruits of SA corruption. No brainer, we agree.

 

[UhihaJax]

OCK was a white american. Can I see your resources?

Using my logic it is apparent that pre-emptive attack do nothing to aid the situation, instead they breed a fundamental hotbed where more followers will emrge from.
Hence my stance on the subject.

 

[Hobbit]

Hey, if we liberate a few countries, we eliminate the radicals. It's easy to get a downtrodden, poor, starving, practically enslaved whelp to kill himself for a cause. He doesn't have much to live for. However, if he's got good food and clothing, a place to live, a chance at a good education, and a bright and hopeful future, then how easy is it to get him to blow himself up for a cause?

As to your family analogy, lemme hand you the other side, if the war was being fought under the liberal guidlines.

Joe, an American reserve soldier with a wife and family, along with a good job back in the states, is in Iraq. He's eating lunch one day when he hears that 5 U.S. soldiers, 2 of whom he knew, were killed in an ambush in Fallujah. What's worse is that they also got 4 civilians, 1 of whom he met and really liked. Not only that, but the civilian bodies were mutilated, dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from bridge along with anti-American signs. Right about now, Joe is seething with anger and has his thoughts bent on showing those guys exactly where they can shove those signs of theirs. Well, Joe is deployed to Fallujah to root out the resistance. Well, he gets there with all his Army buddies and they set up shop. Well, they can't impose a nighttime curfew, because that would impose on the freedoms of others, so the first night on patrol, 2 of Joe's buddies are picked off by guys hiding in the shadows. They can't can't barricade the city, because that would also impose on people's freedoms, so several of the guys they're looking for get out, and Joe begins to wonder why he's still there. Two more of Joe's buddies get picked offby people hiding guns in grocery bags, because searching people imposes on their rights. One day, Joe is in a firefight downtown when the bad guys are about to run out of ammo. "Good," Joe's thinking," If they run out of ammo, we can just go over there and grab them all without even a fight." Well, they then see a few kids hauling ammo over to the rebels, but they can't shoot those kids because, according to the liberals, everyone under 18 is wholly innocent and cannot be made wartime casualties, so Joe has to let the rebels get more ammo and three more of his friends are killed during the firefight. Later, Joe is on patrol when shots are fired from within a mosque. He immediately takes cover, but sees that one of his friends is wounded and caught out in the middle. He knows that any second, the rebels will realize he's still alive and shoot him. Joe, in sudden act of extreme bravery, tumbles out of his hiding spot and opens fire, killing 6 rebels and forcing the rest to retreat, although, sadly, a stray bullet ricochets and kills a civilian inside the mosque. Joe's friend lives, but Joe, instead of getting a medal for bravery above and beyond the call, gets court martialed for firing on a religious structure and killing a civilian. Now, poor Joe has lost 9 friends in Iraq, and has lost his rank, job, and reputation for saving the tenth, all because the U.S. government held the saftey of all Iraqi civilians far higher than that of U.S. soldiers.

War is hell. We do what we can to win, apologize for those caught in the middle, and pray for the safety of everyone except the enemy. It's not always clean, but it's what has to be done.

 

[UhihaJax]

Hobbit.
My point is that they should not be making an offensive in Fallujah. You example borders on rdiculous and is based on sweeping generalisations of liberal policies.

Is there no country you wouldn't invade eric?

 

[Annie]

This is the one that I've been following for several years. I guess the reason why is that I remember the news reports about a white truck or van with Middle Eastern men in it. After about 20 minutes, that was pulled and never mentioned again.



http://www.jaynadavis.com/story.html

 

[UhihaJax]

Given that Iraq has become a problem.
Do you not think it wise to refrain from invading other nations lest the U.S incurr international wrath and create more problems then it can deal with?

 

[UhihaJax]

Is there much solid evidence yet Kathianne?

 

[Hobbit]

I'm just repeating the policies I've heard suggested by other liberals. How am I supposed to know what liberal policy really is when everything I hear from liberals is immediately disavowed as soon as I show it in a negative light?

Although I can't remember exactly who said all this stuff (mainly from friends and other boards, politicians are waaaaay too carful to say this stuff with so many Americans supporting the war), I'll give you the quotes.

"I can't believe they're holding a curfew. I don't care why they did if, if somebody put a curfew like that on my town, I'd raise hell."

"Next thing you know, they'll be searching people's grocery sacks. Of all the gall, haven't these Iraqis been through enough?"

"They fired rockets at a mosque?! How dare they! That's a holy site! Soldiers should NEVER shoot at a holy site! Whoever fired that rocket should be court martialed."

"I can't believe they're shooting kids. I mean, they're just carrying supplies. It's not like they're armed or anything."

 

[UhihaJax]

Those are amusing and you are right to point out that extremism is always incorrect (this is in reference to extreme libitarianism).

I do not think they should have attacked the Mosque. If anything it is a bad political descision to make and will breed further terrorists. They should have withdrawn and considered a different strategy.

Of course with a military campaign (remember I am not for this offensive, and if you look aorund the world you'll see many who support my opinion) you need curfews and controls if your a "pacifying" an area. I do not contest those requirements as the U.S miltiray needs to be protected as their lives are as importants as anyone elses.

 

[eric]

Is there no country you wouldn't invade eric

Not if they provide comfort to terrorists !

 

[UhihaJax]

What if they are just suspected to harbour terrorists or just basically refuse to co-operate with U.S investigation? (you know, gray areas)