Wisdom

[]LoL[Harm]

The rest of the article is okay, these two sections stood out:

...We seem to be very efficient at waging war, yet almost inept at waging peace.

What the United States government doesn't seem to understand is that you can't just go around destroying people you don't like, and expect all your problems to be over. Behind every Viet Cong there was another one behind the next tree. Behind Saddam there now appears Moktade al-Sadr, and once we've dealt with him, the consciousness he represents will morph into another leader just as troublesome. Until we recognize the importance of our relationship to the hearts and minds of the people of the world, we will continue to inspire enmity despite whatever good intentions we actually bring to the table. You cannot impose your will on other people -- even if your will is for their higher good -- and not expect them to resent you. A nation is a collection of individuals, and individuals are deeply influenced by their feelings. Imposing your will on others is a basically disrespectful stance, and showing disrespect --- particularly to an Arab male, whose culture so focuses on honor and respect -- is psychologically and emotionally inept.

Full article can be found here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0420-14.htm

[Allison]

Surprise, surprise .... I agree. :)

[Rooster]

Except, even with the best of intentions, these people try and sometimes succeed in killing us.

So... we kill them first. End of story. There will never be world peace as long as people share different view points.

[]LoL[Harm]

We share different view points, yet we don't kill each other. I know what you mean however. Tolerance is the end of war. However tolerance is not taught at the end of a gun.

And if you believe just killing people will give you peace you need to read more news on Isreal and the Palestinian issue. But perhaps they just didn't kill enough you might add, well there are only two extremes that will create unending peace: One is everyone stops killing each other, the other is you kill everyone off that could possibly threaten you. Neither is ever going to happen. Neither quote above mentioned war as being evil or unecessary, it was harping on our stumbling attempts at Peace Keeping.

[Allison]

Except, even with the best of intentions, these people try and sometimes succeed in killing us.
I think the point of the article is that "the best of intentions" are meaningless without appropriate action. In the author's view, the appropriate actions revolve more around "hearts and minds" campaigns, than military ones.

And, may I point out, the article is talking about Iraq, which was not trying to kill us when we invaded.

[Hammer]

Can't we all just get along??



no

[Figtoria]

Great quotes Harm.

I totally agree.

[Swifty_Johnson]

And, may I point out, the article is talking about Iraq, which was not trying to kill us when we invaded.

Unless your name was Bush and had something to do with the 91 war.

Now, was Iraq not trying to kill us because they were nice, peace loving people. OR did we just happen to have a much bigger stick than they did.

Swifty

[Allison]

Unless your name was Bush and had something to do with the 91 war.

Now, was Iraq not trying to kill us because they were nice, peace loving people. OR did we just happen to have a much bigger stick than they did.

Swifty
Right, I think what you're referring to was the Iraqi-sponsored attempted assasination of Bush Sr. in 1993. Clinton bombed the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters in retaliation. Presto Bravo ... no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism since then.

In answer to your question, because we have a bigger stick, obviously. That's the way things have always worked since before the Cold War. We've never attacked and occupied a nation because someday possibly they might be a threat to us. Since when do we use as a justification for war the notion that the people we're attacking aren't "nice, peace loving people?"

[Rooster]

So you're saying, that if the Militant Islamics became tolerant of us (ie, they STOP trying to kill us), we'd still bomb them and take out their leaders? I highly doubt it. We're a very reasonable society.

[Swifty_Johnson]

We've never attacked and occupied a nation because someday possibly they might be a threat to us.

Panama and Grenada.

Since when do we use as a justification for war the notion that the people we're attacking aren't "nice, peace loving people?"

How about they aren't nice people and if they got a bigger stick than us, they would be killing us.

Swifty

[Rooster]

"Presto Bravo ... no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism since then."

Tell that to our Israeli allies.

Allies don't let allies get their asses kicked.

[Hammer]

Think you could add Germany and Japan to that list. They were of little direct threat to the US at the time of WWII.

How about this for a first sentence instead:

What the Terrorist don't seem to understand is that you can't just go around destroying people you don't like, and expect all your problems to be over.

[Rooster]

True, at what point do you step in when you see your enemy amassing a force.

NIP IT IN THE BUD!!!

[Sparky]

Think you could add Germany and Japan to that list. They were of little direct threat to the US at the time of WWII.

How about this for a first sentence instead:

What the Terrorist don't seem to understand is that you can't just go around destroying people you don't like, and expect all your problems to be over.


Mmmmkay, Pearl Harbor.

[Rooster]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO!!

[Sparky]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO!!

The Japanese bombed pearl harbor, but I thought the point of this list was naming countries that didn't pose an active threat to the U.S. when we sent in forces.

I was responding to Hammer's "little direct threat" line.

[Rooster]

http://161.58.5.90/animal/germans.wav

[Sparky]

http://161.58.5.90/animal/germans.wav
LMFAO, ok, I get it :P

Sorry Roo

[PoxTheSmall]

I think Hammer was implying that they were deemed "a little direct threat" prior to us getting bombed at Pearl Harbor, which means that basically you can think nothing of someone until they kick you in the sack, after that, the gloves are off.

In regards to the crap in Iraq. I'll support our troops no matter what, but as for the judgment call for sending them in, in the first place, I think it was all bs. There's no direct evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 911, although they may have appreciated the attacks on the United States, I seriously doubt they had any direct or indirect involvement in it. There's also no WMD evidence to support the war either. Bush had a bone to pick for his father's failure, now it's costing the lives of our soldiers and their citizens. Hell yes, they're killing Americans over there, just like if America were ever invaded, supporters of our government would do exactly the same...take the Revolutionary War for example (yes, I know we weren't technically invaded, but we fought tooth and nail for our freedom, which is probably what the folks loyal to Saddam's old ways feel now).

As for not having ever invaded without reason, why'd we invade in '91? Since when has America directly stepped into a situation where we didn't have something to gain or where we were physically threatened? There've been horrible things happening in other countries in the last decade that America did little to do to stop, so what makes Saddam any different? Which genocide was it that happened in Africa in the 90's that resulted in over a million deaths? I don't remember America lifting a hand to stop that...

[Rooster]

We didn't invade in 91.

We liberated Kuwait. We WANTED to, but GWB Sr. figured it wasn't a great idea at the time.

Turns out it was a great idea the second time around. Kicked ass and took names and dug his rotten ass out of a hole in the ground.

[Allison]

Turns out it was a great idea the second time around. Kicked ass and took names and dug his rotten ass out of a hole in the ground.
History will tell how great of an idea it was. :/

[Sparky]

We didn't invade in 91.

We liberated Kuwait. We WANTED to, but GWB Sr. figured it wasn't a great idea at the time.

Turns out it was a great idea the second time around. Kicked ass and took names and dug his rotten ass out of a hole in the ground.


Who is 'we'? I don't recall being asked my opinion on that action... course I was in grade school :P

[]LoL[Harm]

In my opinion '91 is when we should have done it while Iraq was the central focus. While we were still working on the finishing of our war in Afghanastan is not the best time, resource wise, to move on to another. Once again: Basic Field Operations; Complete Your Objectives.

[spyder913]

By 'Invading' he probably meant the air raids of Baghdad and other targets in Iraq. We may not have used ground forces, but that's because they weren't necessary at the time.