Leading the People to War

[tolbiny]

Your right, what i meant was i cannont think of a third world country in which this has happened.

[ACPlayer]

Dont even think about agreeing. The two are just not comparable. Germany was the one doing the invading and the free world was defending. Even though some say that is what happened with 9/11 it is NOT. No soveriegn nation invaded us and we did not have to defend against such an invasion.

[Edge34]

If you want to take that parallel, how about this...

Germany didn't attack the US at all. Japan did. Should we have only defended ourselves from Japan, since Pearl Harbor was the straw that broke the camel's back on the US entering WWII?

No sovereign nation invaded us and we did not have to defend? Sir, I declare that response to be total, unadulterated BS. Is the new rule of defense that the world must recognize an aggressor as a "sovereign nation"? Hell, why don't we just let terrorist organizations all over the world run over our ass, I'm sure there's plenty that want a piece of us!

The fact of the matter is, in the world today, there are no solid, clear-cut rules of war and aggression, and while I would be the first to agree that war is a horrible situation, I am the first to say it is also still sadly necessary. The United States was attacked by a terrorist organization on 9/11/01, and if we weren't to defend ourselves, we would just be essentially encouraging more like them to take a shot, just to see how much they could get away with. Not to mention, as the unofficial "leader of the free world", if the United States doesn't retailate and defend herself and her people, that is additionally encouraging terrorists.

I wish terrorists could be reasoned with, but that's why they're TERRORISTS, not politicians.

-Edge

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Dont even think about agreeing. The two are just not comparable. Germany was the one doing the invading and the free world was defending. Even though some say that is what happened with 9/11 it is NOT. No soveriegn nation invaded us and we did not have to defend against such an invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. The comparison was whether a sovereign nation could be invaded and have a democratic government put in place and succeed. Germany fulfils the conditions of that comparison regardless of the fact that we were defending against initial German aggression against the rest of Europe.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Your right, what i meant was i cannont think of a third world country in which this has happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'ts happened countless times in ancient history. The whole point is mute. The major obstacle in creating a democracy over there is not us invading, it is the lines in the sand.

The borders of the countries are not where they should be. The League of Nations screwed this up against the Arabic will.

Controversial(not my beliefs):
Also, NPR did a interesting little bit about how the current mentality in the middle east is very similar to christianity and intolerance in America during the Salem witch hunt era. It also explained why. In time (and with the spread of the internet), hopefully, this will pass.

[ACPlayer]

We came to the assistance of the British against the Germans, Japanese and Italians, against well defined enemies.

After the war we had the support of the world in our efforts.

In the case of Iraq, we attacked without direct provocation. We have the support of only the British at this point (that too is limited only to part of their govt and not the poeple).

Saying the two are similar is comparing Hold Em and Stud. They are both forms of poker (or war) but are completely different games.

I dont advocate reasoning with terrorists at all. I want to attack the source of the terrorism and wipe it off the planet, if possible. The last thing I want to do is to continue to fan the flames of terrorisms and give the extremists more fuel to pour on the fire.

[Edge34]

Hey ACPlayer,

You're right, we did team up with the British to defeat Italy, Japan, and Germany - but the real war had already begun on the European front before the United States became involved. It did take Pearl Harbor to throw us into action, although nobody would argue that we should and would have gone to help Britain...just when?

Change topic - I'm intrigued. You say you want to attack the "source of terrorism and wipe it off the face of the planet, if possible." With this statement, I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is, the source of terrorism is NOT well-defined. The incarnation we deal with from the Middle East right now is some sick, twisted version of the Muslim religion that these maniacs believe will lead them to Allah, by killing all "infidels" or those who don't believe the same things they do.

Now, how precisely do we attack this source of terrorism without fanning a few flames along the way? I'm not saying this as a Republican OR a Democrat, I'm asking this as one person to another - how does one go about destroying a poorly-defined enemy without significant risk along the way? As we've all said, these suicidal maniacs are beyond reason.

And we do have support from more than the British, they're just our most powerful and vocal supporter. Countries like Australia, among others, should not have their contributions to this cause ignored (not saying you are, just saying it shouldn't be).

-Edge

[Cerril]

True, but I think the point is that this was a misdeclared war... other 'wars on terror' have had discrete beginnings (like this one) and specified endpoints (unlike this one).

One of the first quotes, the one being argued against, is still relevant here - this is not a positive situation, a war that is 'unwinnable' (even if we can win battles) and is admittedly endless. If I were to be melodramatic I'd mention 1984 but it's overdone.

[ACPlayer]

This is an area that requires a good debate. However, if you consider remarks from people like Richard Perle (not exactly the darling of the left/liberals) he too has said that the source of terrorism against the US are the Egyptians and the Saudis and to some extent Pakistan. One thing is very clear that the source of terrorism is NOT Iraq, Iran, etc.

Second, we in the west have not only done nothing to help lift the Arab populace from economic stagnation, we have actually prevented it. First by not being willing to work towards an equitable solution to the middle east problem and second by not being willing to establish normal trading patterns with countries like Iran, Syria, who have no direct beef (they do have an indirect beef due to out support of Israel and the dumping of Palestinians in their land to allow outsiders to live in what is now Israel) with us.

Even handedness, trade relations, would be good first steps. Cracking down really hard on the Israeli hardliner and settlement expansions, etc would help. At present there is not even a semblance of even handedness in the middle east.

These are just one set of views. We have no chance of killing all the muslims which would be the "ultimate"solution.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is very clear that the source of terrorism is NOT Iraq, Iran, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre kidding right? Iran? Their links to various terrorist groups are well known.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, we in the west have not only done nothing to help lift the Arab populace from economic stagnation, we have actually prevented it

[/ QUOTE ]

Most economic problems in the middle east are directly attributable to factors within the respective countries themseleves, something the US has very litle effect on.

[ QUOTE ]
the dumping of Palestinians in their land to allow outsiders to live in what is now Israel

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow up to this point I was giving you some credit but this shows a profound lack of understanding of the Palestinian situation.

[ QUOTE ]
At present there is not even a semblance of even handedness in the middle east.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its hard to mediate evenhandedly between groups when one group's SOP in dealing with their grievances is strap explosives to their body and walk into a crowed cafe. The US would be very foolish to accomodate these sort of tactics in any fashion.