Pre-emptive Strike in Iraq

[spillmind]

since tangents have gotten out of hand, i thought i'd post this here and see if i don't have to write page long posts covering everything from mrs. george bush's xanax prescription to kim jong-il's funky afro.

anyone care to say where we draw the line on pre-emptive attacks?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
since tangents have gotten out of hand, i thought i'd post this here and see if i don't have to write page long posts covering everything from mrs. george bush's xanax prescription to kim jong-il's funky afro.

anyone care to say where we draw the line on pre-emptive attacks?

Good question, but not easily answered.

Not to beat on a dead horse, but countries need to be held accountable when supporting terrorism. If they condone it, support it & harbor terrorists, then they can and should expect some sort of action. Anything less will feed their power.

If a country is working hand in hand with us, or other allies, to try and resolve the issue - then a strike may not be in order. (and before you say it, Iraq was not working with us, but rather against us) (we can argue all day long about thousands of issues, but I think we can at least all agree that Saddam and his regime were obviously being counter productive in negotiations with the USA, the UN and with the inspectors).

I think the decision on whether or not to take military action needs to be taken care of case by case.

People need to understand that America will no longer sit back and negotiate for 12 years after the 9/11 tragedy. The days of being hopeful for peaceful resolutions has gotten much shorter. Maybe that'll increase again in time, but for now, it's better than sitting back idly hoping no more terrorism will hit the homeland OR elsewhere.

 

[5stringJeff]

If a nation, such as Iraq, constitutes a viable and eminent (sp?) threat to the US, as it did by harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and possessing WMD, then I say that yes, we do have the right to pre-emptively strike.

And why did the whole pre-emptive strike issue not matter when we attacked Afghanistan? After all, the Taliban didn't attack us on 9-11 - it was al-Qaeda. If it was OK to attack Afghanistan to go after al-Qaeda, why not Iraq?

And I know that your next question is going to be something like this: "Russia/China/all these other countries threaten the US. When are we going to attack them!" My answer (pre-emptively) is this: those other countries are not openly seeking to destroy the US by any means possible as al-Qaeda and its host nations are.

Originally posted by spillmind
since tangents have gotten out of hand, i thought i'd post this here and see if i don't have to write page long posts covering everything from mrs. george bush's xanax prescription to kim jong-il's funky afro.

anyone care to say where we draw the line on pre-emptive attacks?

 

[spillmind]

'If a country is working hand in hand with us, or other allies, to try and resolve the issue '

now anybody want to make a guesstimate at the amount of grey area jeff is referring to?

first, you should list all the countries in the world not 'working hand in hand' for a better USA, and tell us why we haven't prompted a strike against them.

and then why don't you elaborate on this one, and use an objective example, like iran might have terrorists. they aren't working 'hand in hand' to help US resolve OUR issue. so a strike will smooth things over for us?

i'm not following you here.

and this is great:

'America will no longer sit back and negotiate' and in the same paragraph, jim was so kind to include everyone else: (i think he means britain) that 'terrorism will hit the homeland OR elsewhere'
oh, how worldy elsewhere sounds.

terrorism will never die, and i just don't see how pre-emption has served to make us safer from a future terrorist attack.

jeff: if having WMD at one point in time is the exact same thing as having them and plotting to use them, possibly any day, i'll vote republican.
but i'm afraid they are not. harboring al-qaeda terrorists?

what numbers and sources exactly are you referring to here? (the old NT arguement. too funny) it's a joke, you don't have to answer that.

but seriously, there are many countries harboring what we consider terrorists. by attempting to handle it the way we did, only brings what we have now.

american soldiers unwelcome in a shooting gallery. a ridiculous bill that we all know we don't know the TRUTH on. i wish one of you bushies could give us some REAL numbers and stop calling that puppet a saint that cannot tell a lie. (for another thread). an unstable region that will not grow with international help until the region is STABLE. i argue that this region will never be stable.

'And why did the whole pre-emptive strike issue not matter when we attacked Afghanistan? After all, the Taliban didn't attack us on 9-11 - it was al-Qaeda. If it was OK to attack Afghanistan to go after al-Qaeda, why not Iraq?'

what is amazing to me day in and day out is the sheer percentile of the american populace that 'answers polls' STILL BELIEVES that taliban=9-11=iraq!!! stunning. HEEEELLLLOOOO

someone from the taliban talking to someone from iraq a couple of times is hardly the bonnie and clyde scenario that some of you so wish it was. ok, there is a remote connection... is *anyone* seeing the difference yet?

i guess you mean millions of protestors world wide are complete uneducated paranoid idiots that hate us because we are free. there was small protest to the invasion of afghanistan (damn crusty hippies)....
but generally everyone mourned our loss genuinely (aside from radical muslim groups)

osama was public enemy #1, and i agree with our intelligence on that one. still not proven, but highly suspect. the world also generally conceded, and operation f*** afgahnistan up on a bin laden mission commenced, completed. however, don't ignore this region as a model for iraq. anybody heard any good news from afghanistan lately?

the bottom line is, america does not have the funds nor the resources to pursue every threat we deem threatening. and since the oil struggle still shackles us to this region, we must place the power/death game. right? why continue to pay that price? soon the money will run out for invading countries, and other options will have to come into play.

pre-emption is a terrible policy with virtually no measure and will only bring more death and terror home than it had ever hoped to stop.

 

[NightTrain]

terrorism will never die, and i just don't see how pre-emption has served to make us safer from a future terrorist attack.

Whoa! Spillmind is right, everyone! Let's pull back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, EVERYWHERE, because it's a waste of money and time, and we're oppressing his brothas from fulfilling their 72 virgin quotas.

Yep, we need to just huddle up and wait for the strikes to hit us, similar to Israel vs Palestinians.

When we do this, we'll be reading about the latest Washington D.C. suicide bombing killing infants, youngsters, women and men, and say to ourselves, "Yeah, but at least we're not going after terrorists!".

Then we'll all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

What will Spilly say then? Yep, we're intolerant. Misunderstood muslims. We should have sang, "Kumbaya Allah and Spillmind", instead.

jeff: if having WMD at one point in time is the exact same thing as having them and plotting to use them, possibly any day, i'll vote republican.

What? Don't ever vote, you idiot!

what numbers and sources exactly are you referring to here? (the old NT arguement. too funny) it's a joke, you don't have to answer that.

Yep. Facts and supporting major news articles are NOT allowed!!

Common sense??? PuuuuLEASE!! Dayyy-um, Whitey!
What was you thinkin, mah niglet??

but seriously, there are many countries harboring what we consider terrorists. by attempting to handle it the way we did, only brings what we have now.

Really? Again, I think you're full of shit, Homey! Let's see your backup on this.

Of course you're not going to provide proof of your idiotic statement. What was this cracker thinkin?

i argue that this region will never be stable.

Of course! They're stupid, right, Homey? Modern free governments are NOT for the likes of those, right?? Sheeeiiiitt

And why did the whole pre-emptive strike issue not matter when we attacked Afghanistan? After all, the Taliban didn't attack us on 9-11 - it was al-Qaeda. If it was OK to attack Afghanistan to go after al-Qaeda, why not Iraq

Yo, G-Dog! It be like dis : The Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. Da Evil White Honky Bush said, ' NO DISTINCTION'. Word! Power to da people.

what is amazing to me day in and day out is the sheer percentile of the american populace that 'answers polls' STILL BELIEVES that taliban=9-11=iraq!!! stunning. HEEEELLLLOOOO

Yo, dog! Check dis out! Taliban, dey be not part of Nine Elebben and even da Reverend Sharpton couldnt' lay blame to da honky Prez for dat. De Al Qaeda, dey is! We whupped de shit outta de Taliban because de be harborin' dey terrorists, G! Taliban had nuttin to do wit de Nine Elebbin, dey jus' provided a crib fo Osama! Word!

someone from the taliban talking to someone from iraq a couple of times is hardly the bonnie and clyde scenario that some of you so wish it was. ok, there is a remote connection... is *anyone* seeing the difference yet?

Yo, G! You lost a brotha! Sheeeiiiiitt. Why for you be translatin' da taliban to Al Qaeda, dog?

osama was public enemy #1, and i agree with our intelligence on that one. still not proven, but highly suspect.

Heeeell yeah! Dat was Bush and Rummy! And de Oil Companies, Dog! Keep Whitey in power, yo!

anybody heard any good news from afghanistan lately?

Any brotha heard any neg? Yeah, de brothas just be chillin, dey be waitin for de checks. Welfare. Heeelllll yeah.

the bottom line is, america does not have the funds nor the resources to pursue every threat we deem threatening. and since the oil struggle still shackles us to this region, we must place the power/death game. right? why continue to pay that price? soon the money will run out for invading countries, and other options will have to come into play.

Word! Where's my welfare check?!

We be broke! Dat be why we be pledging billions to Aids in Africa. Okay, dat's cool. Maybe Rummy and Bushis ain't so evil.

It be all about de OIIIILLLLL! I wish you honkies be seein dis, dat Rummy and Bushie be evil honkies! Evil!

pre-emption is a terrible policy with virtually no measure and will only bring more death and terror home than it had ever hoped to stop.

Dat's right! We be icin' de bad guys over dere, but we should't. Heeelllll no! We should grab a jacuzzi and smoke a couple, and wait til de terrorists be blowin up shit! Heeeellll yeeaaahhhh!!

Word!

 

[spillmind]

*yawn*

officially boring.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
*yawn*

officially boring.

I know you wouldn't recognize humor if it bit you in your liberal ass, but regardless of that, you just cannot come up with a logical answer that is supported by anything other than your twisted opinion.

I'm sure if you laid out the facts (supported of course) in a polite and non attacking manner, you'll see plenty of replies in the same manner.

You'll lose the debate just the same, but at least you'll leave with a bit of respect from fellow members.

(NT - that was frickin hilarious!)

BTW - Spilly - NT is just playing with you obviously, I'm the only true racist around these parts!

 

[janeeng]

Now that just was too damn hillarious! I sat here cracking up for sure. And spillmind, Jim is right! it's like you might as well have cut and paste the shit right out of other forums, same crap, different day, bitching about the damn Taliban, nothing to do with this, nothing to do with that, bullshit! Like NT said, harbor them, keep them, then pay the price. Guess you think after 9/11, the US should have just said, ouch, and just let it go! we aren't Canada, france, or germany! we fight for what's right!!!! Sorry, scum like that that came over here to kill the innocent, deserve to die twice. And, if it means that other countries have to pay the price, oh well, don't harbor the terrorists then, they were warned.

 

[eric]

NT you crack me up! Had to get my homey ass a new pair of briefs!

 

[Spirit_Soul]

"we fight for what's right!!!! Sorry, scum like that that came over here to kill the innocent, deserve to die twice. And, if it means that other countries have to pay the price, oh well, don't harbor the terrorists then, they were warned."

Then, why are we letting the Arab princes harbor the terrorists in their palaces?

Giving them sumptous meals will not cure the problem, but it will create more problems.

 

[spillmind]

um, funnyman NT is going to need you to post some links to that, since denial is his middle name.

and if it was funny, i would have credited it as such. there is no way NT is writing humor for anyone beyond this board, but i guess it says a lot about you guys laughing at that shit of all things. i guess ignorance really is bliss.

the only thing different about this board from other con-loving boards is that you people congratualte yourselves on a regular basis! is that not telling enough for you to realize?

i saw NT meager attempt at humor. can you see your own fallacies?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
harboring al-qaeda terrorists?
what numbers and sources exactly are you referring to here? (the old NT arguement. too funny) it's a joke, you don't have to answer that.
but seriously, there are many countries harboring what we consider terrorists. by attempting to handle it the way we did, only brings what we have now.
american soldiers unwelcome in a shooting gallery.

OK... there are many terrorist organizations in the world. Only one of them launched a heinous attack on the US. Thus, we are only on a search-and-destroy mission for one of them. And the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime was there, thus our attack in Iraq.

Originally posted by spillmind
what is amazing to me day in and day out is the sheer percentile of the american populace that 'answers polls' STILL BELIEVES that taliban=9-11=iraq!!! stunning. HEEEELLLLOOOO...
osama was public enemy #1, and i agree with our intelligence on that one. still not proven, but highly suspect. the world also generally conceded, and operation f*** afgahnistan up on a bin laden mission commenced, completed. however, don't ignore this region as a model for iraq. anybody heard any good news from afghanistan lately?

Again, al-Qaeda, not the Taliban, attacked on 9/11. So the connection goes 9/11 -> al-Qaeda -> Afghanistan and Iraq. And, in case you didn't notice, millions of people in Afghanistan now enjoy basic human freedoms that were denied them under the Taliban regime. That's excellent news.

i]Originally posted by spillmind [/i]
the bottom line is, america does not have the funds nor the resources to pursue every threat we deem threatening. and since the oil struggle still shackles us to this region, we must place the power/death game. right? why continue to pay that price? soon the money will run out for invading countries, and other options will have to come into play.
pre-emption is a terrible policy with virtually no measure and will only bring more death and terror home than it had ever hoped to stop.

The blood-for-oil line again... how original of you. If you are so upset about our dependence on Arab oil, would you suppport increased offshore drilling, or drilling in ANWR, until such time that alternate energy sources become viable?

 

[spillmind]

'And the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime was there, thus our attack in Iraq.'

weak case, and i suggest you make a case for attacking everyone and anyone who had these kind of ties to al-qaeda, or it looks a lot like hypocrisy. of course at this point, you will probably try to throw in a bunch of other reasons, and let's hope they are reasons that solely apply to iraq.

besides, that link was equal or weaker than with other countries like saudi arabia, turkey, jordan, and lebanon. i'm sure if we dug has hard as we desperately did for iraq, you'd be amaze at what kind of 'links' we can come up with, rendering your arguement a common cause.

no i don't support more of the oil chase ANYWHERE, amd it's amazing to me how i throw the energy solution out there, and to most of you people, it's not even an option. can you guess how much money we put into an energy solution for running cars last year? i'll give you a liberal estimate at around 200 million. do your own math: http://www.costofwar.com why is this not an option to so many? head in the sand syndrome?

and you are wrong, i am not saying BLOOD FOR OIL like your warped perspectives put words in my mouth as if you heard me say it.

america simply does not have enough FUNDS to go around knocking out terrorist harboring countries, let alone deal with the repercussions from them. most of you are still in denail about anybody harboring a sense of revenge for iraq!

it's like i am talking to a brick wall sometimes!

 

[Creek]

If it wasn't for energy spillmind,you wouldn't be able to spill your guts out here.
If you're so anti-american,and anti-bush,anti war...pro enviroment etc..etc...You should be using more stamps,instead of threatening our peaceful nation with your hate crimes...YES..You really hate all,and all us here....

It's like you're on a reservation of some kind..and even our government pays for them...Talk about how bad we are ha?

I guess the only thing you have not complained about is natural gas....and you've been shooting alot of it in our direction since you showed up here...

America can afford to go knock down all the doors,and bomb where need be....You obviously don't understand the positive nature of pre-emptive strikes...You running the show...all 3rd world countries would have nuclear weapons now.....

We got the,and with that responsibilty comes the job of making sure others don't.

I bet you'd tour the Iranian plant alongside with Carter..and hope to get a medal for saying how Utopian you are...!!!

Look budy..WAR was declared when Saddam out did his ambitions...We disaggree....Ok..that I can accept...but wake up..and smell the coffee.....Saudi Arabia is MORE GUILTY..but Saddam wiped a burger under the desk..He left himself open to any kinda responce to the U.S...That's reality...The French re arm him,along with Russia etc....War is profit..and a terrible thing....

I've never known a country who can't afford war..Look at Germany in WWII...Japan...and even the poor country of N.Korea....the Koreans are preparing for it...and we will also...it just takes a little snot under the desk for an excuse....

You feel like you're talking to a brick wall with us?...Well I feel your words are graffiti on a wall...

Cheer up,and be nice to us...only working together can we make a better world....you seem to point fingers pretty quick!!!

I can aggree with you..but not being so "Your way"...The world don't work that way....

Creek

 

[spillmind]

so which militia do you lead?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
so which militia do you lead?

New smilies just for you, Spilly!



:wank:

 

[spillmind]

flauting that IQ again?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
flauting that IQ again?

Speaking of IQ's, why doesn't the word "flauting" show up in any dictionaries?

 

[janeeng]

Geez, this thing with IQ's has really been the issues more so than anything! who gives a rats ass what IQ either of you have, I have a higher than both! hahhahahahahahahaha!!!!! You two, spillmind and Jim, sorry, but I gotta say, you 2 are sort of the same, generally speaking of course! where's the 2 new smiles that you added? I don't see them???

 

[eric]

They are in Jim's private stock.