If War Isn't the answer, What is??

[Bonnie]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53274

"War is not the answer."
So said the bumper sticker on the car I parked behind. Early for my haircut, I decided to sit a bit and ponder the gravity of that message. "War is not the answer" – to what? To non-war? To, say, the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? To Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939? To the simultaneous multi-Arab nation attack on the newly United-Nations-chartered state of Israel in 1948?

The bumper-sticker driver, undoubtedly, knows of a "peaceful" or "diplomatic" response to all of history's wars. Since he or she completely rejects the notion of a "just war," I decided to wait a bit in hopes that the driver might return to enlighten me.

What to do, for example, with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who directly threatens the United States? He said, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Only recently, he elaborated. In talks in Qatar with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, Ahmadinejad said, "[T]he Zionist regime was created to establish dominion of arrogant states over the region and to enable the enemy to penetrate the heart of Muslim land." Haniyeh said Israel was "on the verge of disappearing." "There is no doubt the Palestinian nation and Muslims as a whole will emerge victorious," the Iranian president told Haniyeh.

(Column continues below)



Since "war is not the answer," how would Mr./Ms. Bumper Sticker respond? Ignore it? Apparently, Ahmadinejad does not mean it. Take action first? Of course not, since, if "war is not the answer," then presumably "pre-emptive war" is not, either.

What about our military's recent report of "smoking gun" evidence of Iran's direct shipment of munitions to "insurgents" in Iraq? After free elections in Iraq where nearly 80 percent of eligible Iraqis voted, after the establishment of a constitution, after the establishment of a multi-ethnic government, the Holocaust-denying country of Iran sends money, munitions and intel to destroy Iraq's fledgling government. Advice, please.

Israel, the country Iran seeks to "wipe out from the map of the world," pulled completely out of the Gaza Strip. In return, the Palestinians sent rockets into Israel and kidnapped a soldier. Meanwhile, in southern Lebanon, under the noses of the United Nations "peacekeepers," terror group Hezbollah, financed by Iran, built a stockpile of thousands of rockets, a substantial portion of which ended up cascading down on Israeli towns and villages during the Hezbollah/Lebanon/Syria/Iran war against Israel. What, then, is "the answer"?

What of World War II – a catastrophic conflict resulting in over 50 million military and civilian deaths? Winston Churchill wrote that if France and Britain had taken early action to stop Hitler, the entire war might have been averted. But, again, "pre-emptive war" is still war, is it not?

Iran claims it pursues uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency cannot corroborate those claims. Meanwhile, members of the United Nations, like Russia, sell nuclear technology to Iran. China negotiates deals with Iran to ensure a continuous supply of oil. If "war is not the answer," what about selling nuclear technology when the buyer says that a fellow United Nations state should be wiped out? What's the answer to one of Ahmadinejad's predecessors, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who said, "[T]he use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while [the same] against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable."

But that's just Israel. What about Europe and America?

Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa urged Muslims to target American civilians as "a religious duty." Michael Scheuer, who created and ran the CIA's bin Laden unit, says that in 2003 bin Laden got a Saudi sheik to issue a fatwa authorizing the use of nuclear weapons against Americans, to retaliate for Muslims killed in the "holy war." Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, for his book "Al-Zarqawi: Al-Qaeda's Second Generation," interviewed several of bin Laden's top lieutenants, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein outlines al-Qaida's strategy of seven phases – the first one beginning as an "awakening" for Muslims worldwide following the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan culminates with the "definitive victory" of "one-and-a-half billion Muslims" and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate by 2020.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission wants "dialogue" with Syria and Iran. But the United Nations implicated Syria in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. More recently, assassins shot to death Pierre Gemayel, the high-ranking Lebanese industry minister and another critic of Syria.

Oops, I was now late for my appointment. So the "answer" to war must await my haircut and mustache trim.

 

[KarlMarx]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53274

War is not the answer, foreign policy based on bumper sticker slogans is.


http://www.expectnothing.com/CAR/hippy.shtml

 

[90K]

Well this is the age old question. I remember when 9/11 had occurred after a few weeks I got this article sent to me from a friend in the Bay Area and it was these people from Berkley saying we deserved to be attacked, yet had the west coast gotten a piece of the action would they stood up and agreed we needed attacked? Or would we on the East Coast send slanders over saying we deserved this? I doubt it, even in WWII it had it's skeptics on the role in the war. But we didn't have the media giving us second guess to the decisions that Washington was doing for starters nor did we have these experts getting up and counter acting everything we were trying to achieve either. Seems to me history has been written and we may have limited power at making some changes but over all I believe we will just have to ride it out. And when you have all these anti-war people making such big stands against war and further more not standing up against muslim hatred then what do we do? Until the world really speaks out against these moron clerics then all that can happen is more hate and war. And what about foreign policy? If a nation can’t take an aggressive stand against what it believes as real threats then what good is it?

 

[Bonnie]

Well this is the age old question. I remember when 9/11 had occurred after a few weeks I got this article sent to me from a friend in the Bay Area and it was these people from Berkley saying we deserved to be attacked, yet had the west coast gotten a piece of the action would they stood up and agreed we needed attacked? Or would we on the East Coast send slanders over saying we deserved this? I doubt it, even in WWII it had it's skeptics on the role in the war. But we didn't have the media giving us second guess to the decisions that Washington was doing for starters nor did we have these experts getting up and counter acting everything we were trying to achieve either. Seems to me history has been written and we may have limited power at making some changes but over all I believe we will just have to ride it out. And when you have all these anti-war people making such big stands against war and further more not standing up against muslim hatred then what do we do? Until the world really speaks out against these moron clerics then all that can happen is more hate and war. And what about foreign policy? If a nation can’t take an aggressive stand against what it believes as real threats then what good is it?

Reminds me of something a liberal relative of mine was talking about at our christmas gathering. He is a huge Neil Young fan, and he brought up the "great album" he just did about impeaching Bush over the so called "illegal Iraq war.. I could have said many things but for the sake of family peace, and the fact that God himself must have put his hand over my mouth I simply said isn't he Canadian, gee maybe he should be more concerned about his country's parliamentary shenanigans!!

 

[Bonnie]

War is not the answer, foreign policy based on bumper sticker slogans is.


http://www.expectnothing.com/CAR/hippy.shtml

Yes very true, it's amazing how one can distance themselves from the realities of life and at the same time impart their cliched wisdom to us from their car bumper......so very gutsy

 

[90K]

Reminds me of something a liberal relative of mine was talking about at our christmas gathering. He is a huge Neil Young fan, and he brought up the "great album" he just did about impeaching Bush over the so called "illegal Iraq war.. I could have said many things but for the sake of family peace, and the fact that God himself must have put his hand over my mouth I simply said isn't he Canadian, gee maybe he should be more concerned about his country's parliamentary shenanigans!!

See that is totally amazing what illegal war? Saddam had one thing going for him. And that was he kept the people down and that was a good thing really. But Saddam had to be dealt will sooner or later he was a loose cannon and he would have taken over the Middle East eventually. He was taunting us in Desert Storm if you look back at it. I would almost bet it was a plan to get the world support and the support from places like France and Germany they have no backbone so after 11 years of playing Childs play we insist on the invasion and since france and germany had interest in iraq they bailed out. I do believe many things should have been done different; but there weren't and since we didn't close the borders off it was free game. I believe the iraqis are very lazy and that can be given credit to Saddam on that. But the mind of the liberals and this really weird out look of we are the world and spread peace and love hog wash is really frigging odd. I'm not a war machine but I don't want to back down either.

 

[Bonnie]

See that is totally amazing what illegal war? Saddam had one thing going for him. And that was he kept the people down and that was a good thing really. But Saddam had to be dealt will sooner or later he was a loose cannon and he would have taken over the Middle East eventually. He was taunting us in Desert Storm if you look back at it. I would almost bet it was a plan to get the world support and the support from places like France and Germany they have no backbone so after 11 years of playing Childs play we insist on the invasion and since france and germany had interest in iraq they bailed out. I do believe many things should have been done different; but there weren't and since we didn't close the borders off it was free game. I believe the iraqis are very lazy and that can be given credit to Saddam on that. But the mind of the liberals and this really weird out look of we are the world and spread peace and love hog wash is really frigging odd. I'm not a war machine but I don't want to back down either.

Mistakes are made with every war, it seems the bar now for illegal war terminology is set by Kofi, and France et al, who would wait till the Eifell Tower and half of paris was fire bombed before they would even consider any show of force, and even then I have my doubts...

 

[KarlMarx]

Reminds me of something a liberal relative of mine was talking about at our christmas gathering. He is a huge Neil Young fan, and he brought up the "great album" he just did about impeaching Bush over the so called "illegal Iraq war.. I could have said many things but for the sake of family peace, and the fact that God himself must have put his hand over my mouth I simply said isn't he Canadian, gee maybe he should be more concerned about his country's parliamentary shenanigans!!

Ya know, I think I've figured out the real reason why Ebeneezer Scrooge hated Christmas..... he was a conservative and he had liberal relatives like yours that he had to listen to over Christmas turkey.... no wonder he was so cranky! Same here, I avoided Christmas partly because I didn't want to listen to Bush bashing and Republican bashing by my relatives....

What the f*** is with this freaking "illegal war" BS?

1. Section 7 of the US Constitution that the Senate has the power to

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "

2. Bush asked for and got Senate approval to go to war before hostilities

3. Kofi Annan called this an illegal war.

4. Kofi Annan does not work for the United States government, has not been elected by the American people, appointed by any elected or appointed official of the United States government.....

So, why is this an illegal war? And if this war is illegal, then why isn't the theft of nearly 20 Billion dollars under Kofi Annan's watch NOT illegal? And what about all those sexual assaults by United Nations "peacekeepers" in Africa? I guess they must think they're there to get a piece instead of keeping the peace, huh? .

I get it.... wars waged under Republian Presidents are illegal, but plunder on a scale not dreamed of by the Nazis or the Communists by unelected officials of the United Nations isn't. Yes, rape of children isn't illegal, either.... just so long as it's the UN that's doing it

 

[KarlMarx]

Yes very true, it's amazing how one can distance themselves from the realities of life and at the same time impart their cliched wisdom to us from their car bumper......so very gutsy

Back in elementary school, we used to play a nasty trick on each other. Someone would come up to you, slap you on the back and ask "how's it going?"... when he actually was doing it to tape a sign on your back that said "Kick Me, I'm Stupid"....

I think liberal bumper stickers are an updated version of the "kick me, I'm stupid" signs, except they're self inflicted!

 

[Kagom]

War is an answer sometimes, but not all the time. WW II was justified in that there were grave injustices being extracted all over Europe and within our own backyward (i.e. Pearl Harbor). Hell, going into Afghanistan was justified. I remember writing a poem to praise it at the time (no, I don't have it). But sometimes diplomacy is something that should be tried, but the problem is you can never tell when it might work.

And for the record, I'd support a war with Iran.

 

[KarlMarx]

War is an answer sometimes, but not all the time. WW II was justified in that there were grave injustices being extracted all over Europe and within our own backyward (i.e. Pearl Harbor). Hell, going into Afghanistan was justified. I remember writing a poem to praise it at the time (no, I don't have it). But sometimes diplomacy is something that should be tried, but the problem is you can never tell when it might work.

1991 Ceasefire agreement signed by Saddam Hussein and the United Nations to end hostilities against Iraq.. read the terms and conditions..... then see how often Saddam violated those terms and conditions.

 

[90K]

Back in elementary school, we used to play a nasty trick on each other. Someone would come up to you, slap you on the back and ask "how's it going?"... when he actually was doing it to tape a sign on your back that said "Kick Me, I'm Stupid"....

I think liberal bumper stickers are an updated version of the "kick me, I'm stupid" signs, except they're self inflicted!

You know these liberals in my family are very well educated and have never had to go without nor do any real physical labor. Maybe that is why they think or claim everyone else is so out on left field. And they will argue in a heart beat about useless crap just to look better than anyone else.

 

[Kagom]

1991 Ceasefire agreement signed by Saddam Hussein and the United Nations to end hostilities against Iraq.. read the terms and conditions..... then see how often Saddam violated those terms and conditions.

I didn't even mention Saddam.

Let me put it to you this way: I'm glad Saddam was brought out of power, but I wasn't glad the way we went about it. The reason we went to war has changed many times since the initial invasion and if Bush had a more legit sounding reason that we could easily have proof for, I'd have supported it.

 

[KarlMarx]

I didn't even mention Saddam.

Let me put it to you this way: I'm glad Saddam was brought out of power, but I wasn't glad the way we went about it. The reason we went to war has changed many times since the initial invasion and if Bush had a more legit sounding reason that we could easily have proof for, I'd have supported it.

Basically, there were several reasons, but the fact is that we decided to enforce the United Nations 1991 cease fire with Saddam although the UN would not.

The 1991 cease fire also dealt with WMDs. Saddam kicked the United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, and only let them several months before we began hostilities against him.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

I have to ask if we were to believe our own intelligence agency or the word of a UN weapons inspector regarding the state of Saddam's WMD capabilities? If you answer "UN weapons inspector", then I'd ask, "why"? Why would you place faith in a body of people that seem to be at odds with the United States at almost every turn? And furthermore, why do you not have faith in a branch of our own government whose job it is to defend this country (and has a very good track record of doing it)?

 

[Kagom]

Basically, there were several reasons, but the fact is that we decided to enforce the United Nations 1991 cease fire with Saddam although the UN would not.

The 1991 cease fire also dealt with WMDs. Saddam kicked the United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, and only let them several months before we began hostilities against him.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

I have to ask if we were to believe our own intelligence agency or the word of a UN weapons inspector regarding the state of Saddam's WMD capabilities? If you answer "UN weapons inspector", then I'd ask, "why"? Why would you place faith in a body of people that seem to be at odds with the United States at almost every turn? And furthermore, why do you not have faith in a branch of our own government whose job it is to defend this country (and has a very good track record of doing it)?

I'd believe our intelligence committee probably. They tend to have it right, but this issue they didn't seem to be so quick on the ball.

 

[Bonnie]

Ya know, I think I've figured out the real reason why Ebeneezer Scrooge hated Christmas..... he was a conservative and he had liberal relatives like yours that he had to listen to over Christmas turkey.... no wonder he was so cranky! Same here, I avoided Christmas partly because I didn't want to listen to Bush bashing and Republican bashing by my relatives....

What the f*** is with this freaking "illegal war" BS?

1. Section 7 of the US Constitution that the Senate has the power to

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "

2. Bush asked for and got Senate approval to go to war before hostilities

3. Kofi Annan called this an illegal war.

4. Kofi Annan does not work for the United States government, has not been elected by the American people, appointed by any elected or appointed official of the United States government.....

So, why is this an illegal war? And if this war is illegal, then why isn't the theft of nearly 20 Billion dollars under Kofi Annan's watch NOT illegal? And what about all those sexual assaults by United Nations "peacekeepers" in Africa? I guess they must think they're there to get a piece instead of keeping the peace, huh? .

I get it.... wars waged under Republian Presidents are illegal, but plunder on a scale not dreamed of by the Nazis or the Communists by unelected officials of the United Nations isn't. Yes, rape of children isn't illegal, either.... just so long as it's the UN that's doing it

Funny thing is this relative of mine is very intelligent fact wise, but when it comes to common sense in politics all logic gets thrown out the window, and they just repeat rederic they remember from their communistic Greek roomates in college. If I was to post the entire conversation you'd first laugh then be very frightened that these people actually vote.

For example he was bringing down Rumsfeld, and I said Rumsfeld when he worked for Nixon, was a pioneer in doing away with the draft, and the reason he's hated by some in the Pentagon, he was anti status quo which I believe was in keeping with the sixties Neil young anti-establishment movement. Then I added how his beloved Democrat Charlie Rangel, and company are the ones who want to bring the draft back.....


He just looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights..He had no idea But yet they are so sure they hate Bush, and conservatives.


And yes the senate approved the Iraq war, and Kofi should be hung by his hoo ha for what he did, and his arrogance.

 

[KarlMarx]

I'd believe our intelligence committee probably. They tend to have it right, but this issue they didn't seem to be so quick on the ball.

I'll agree that *perhaps* our intelligence got it wrong, but then, Saddam is a slippery guy. We did find 500 shells of sarin nerve agent after we occupied Iraq. Some of his generals still insist that Saddam hid WMDs or that he misled them into believing that they did have WMDs.

Also, our intelligence capabilities were hamstrung by the Clinton Administration's policy of not using slimeballs for inside sources of intelligence. Unfortunately, slime balls are usually the ones that have the information.

Either way, it's definitely not a case of Bush lied people died.

 

[90K]

I'll agree that *perhaps* our intelligence got it wrong, but then, Saddam is a slippery guy. We did find 500 shells of sarin nerve agent after we occupied Iraq. Some of his generals still insist that Saddam hid WMDs or that he misled them into believing that they did have WMDs.

Also, our intelligence capabilities were hamstrung by the Clinton Administration's policy of not using slimeballs for inside sources of intelligence. Unfortunately, slime balls are usually the ones that have the information.

Either way, it's definitely not a case of Bush lied people died.

I love that John Kerry bit ^^^^^ You know they found all kinds of crap hidden once the invasion was in full swing. Some was to throw us off and some was to hide things of importance. And about intel I whole heartily agree about clinton and his foul ups in the intel area. We as Americans have no business knowing about any intel at all. That has been the major problem for a long time. media gets leaks and they sell out for the story. Intl is just that intel and should be treated as such. If our troops would have been allowed to go over and clean house I can bet a lot of the current issues wouldn't be issues. Since the locals can't or won't sell out the jihadist then people die in the process. Not every operation is completely fool proof, and sometime those operations have to do on the fly changes. One of the biggest mistakes was not taking out al sadr. if we could have gotten him and I know we could have that would have settled a lot of noise coming out of that slum.

 

[KarlMarx]

I love that John Kerry bit ^^^^^ You know they found all kinds of crap hidden once the invasion was in full swing. Some was to throw us off and some was to hide things of importance. And about intel I whole heartily agree about clinton and his foul ups in the intel area. We as Americans have no business knowing about any intel at all. That has been the major problem for a long time. media gets leaks and they sell out for the story. Intl is just that intel and should be treated as such. If our troops would have been allowed to go over and clean house I can bet a lot of the current issues wouldn't be issues. Since the locals can't or won't sell out the jihadist then people die in the process. Not every operation is completely fool proof, and sometime those operations have to do on the fly changes. One of the biggest mistakes was not taking out al sadr. if we could have gotten him and I know we could have that would have settled a lot of noise coming out of that slum.

So why are those arseholes so critical of a war that brought millions of people freedom yet are willing to overlook the brutality of Castro's regime?

Why? Because they are arseholes... and educated ones, at that.

 

[90K]

So why are those arseholes so critical of a war that brought millions of people freedom yet are willing to overlook the brutality of Castro's regime?

Why? Because they are arseholes... and educated ones, at that.

Yeah but what can Cuba do for the US? I mean really it is about what a country can do economically. Cuba would be another burden to us. I mean Iraqi is as well but it's mineral deposits could help it become a decent country that could at least stand on it own and have the money to be independant.