Act of War

[frigidweirdo]

So what will the French do? Go into Syria and Iraq? And then what? This has been done already, and it just got worse.

First, they secure their borders.

Second, they send the invading army back to where they came from.

Thirdly, the world makes the ME somewhere people want to live, we do that by eliminating groups like ISIS.

ON EDIT: Really the first thing is we cut off their money supply.

We are seeing the results of an unarmed invasion and it is coming to the rest of the civilized world. What we don't need to be are Neville Chamberlains thinking these people can be reasoned with.

Who is the "invading army"?

The US? The British? Who exactly?

They close their borders, oh good, and what will that serve? Those who committed the attack earlier this year WERE FROM FRANCE. Chances are the same for this attack.

Why would the US allow the ME to be a place where people want to live? Bush didn't exactly make the post war period a place where people wanted to live, and he didn't give a fuck who died there either.

I didn't say we needed to reason with anyone. We need to stop fucking them around and expecting them to be happy about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just be aware that your opinion on when someone else should go to war is worth about the same thing as the candy wrapper I found in my pocket after washing the clothes last week.

And what of yours? Your opinion about when a country should go to war is just as valuable as the dirt I brush off my shoe.

Be quite aware that those who are to war on our behalf don't care one way or another what we think. They're committed, we aren't. They will act as the edge of the blade at a moment's notice. We won't. Who are we to doubt their resolve? We have no resolve of our own.

At what point does the quest for peace become action instead of a mere stroke of the pen?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I despise Jeb Bush. But one thing he said makes sense.

We don't need to be the world's policeman, we need to be the world's leader.

Think about that. Who else will lead in our place? If we aren't willing to defend our allies, we really shouldn't be allies with anyone. Yes, I get the fact that being an "ally" doesn't mean much to folks today, because one ally could be another's enemy, and another's enemy could someone else's ally.

But if you've pledged your loyalty to an ally, you need to show it. And right now France needs to know we have their backs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why would the US allow the ME to be a place where people want to live? Bush didn't exactly make the post war period a place where people wanted to live, and he didn't give a fuck who died there either.

So I guess we're forgetting that he helped usher in a period of peace where Iraq held its first democratic elections in decades. I would say that if I were an Iraqi, I would be happy to live in a country where I had power to elect my leaders, whereas before leaders would put themselves in power through dastardly means.

Who wouldn't want to live in a country where their voice mattered? But now, since we've pulled out, all that is gone for them again. ISIS is a regional power, and they would much rather silence the voice than let it speak out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is an act of war towards France. And France has every right to wage war on Isis until they submit, are obliterated or France does.

We of course, should be securing our nation from potential attack and offer to sell weapons and training to France id they do choose all out war on Isis.

Given how we were victims of one of the largest single acts of terrorism in our own nation's history, we should sympathize. What better way to pay France back for helping us gain our independence than to help them take down ISIS?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Got it. And your opinion is that my son should go to war.

It's interesting how one would use his son as a pawn in a debate like this, but that's none of my business...

Anywho, Lone Laugher kept telling me in my thread how I wouldn't say certain things about committing our sons and daughters to a war, to people with sons and daughters in the military...

But I'll repeat myself for a third time.

Your son chose that path. He knows the risks. He accepted everything wearing that uniform entails. He's ready to do his part if called into war. You knew just as well as he what risks and dangers were involved. Who are you to second guess his choices? What kind of parent are you to let your political reasoning get in the way of him serving his country? If you didn't want him to go to war, or be a soldier, you should have attempted to steer him down a different career path. But as the good parent you were, you let him make his own choices. It's too late for you to start regretting that now.

Everyone has their opinion of what a justified war is. Nobody wants to see their sons and daughters go to war, nobody wants to see them die. But when the drums of war sound, they are ready to fulfill their duty and service to our country.

I've had generations of family members fight in various wars... Iwo Jima in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq... and one thing they all told me was this, that "war is hell" and they would "do it again." Serving their country was a matter of pride for them, just as I imagine it is for your son.

Yes it is hard to send anyone off to war, but you of all people should understand why they fight. I was no soldier, but I have a good idea why they fought.

I'm not as arrogant as to say that I know what emotions are evoked in a parent when they send their own children off to war... but once again, you of all people should understand why your son chose to become a member of the military.

So the question for you is this: Will you support him if the decision ever came down for he and his comrades to engage in a war that you didn't see as justified?

 

[Vandalshandle]

If we kill a lot of people, then all of our problems will be solved!

 

[TemplarKormac]

If we kill a lot of people, then all of our problems will be solved!

"In Soviet Russia, you don't solve problem, problem solve you!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

There was a reason I liked Starship Troopers, the book and the movie:

One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says violence never solves anything.”

“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”

They had tangled before – since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”

“You seem to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea – a practice I shall always follow. Anybody who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedom.”

-Starship Troopers (the book), by Robert Heinlien

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Got it. And your opinion is that my son should go to war.

Your son chose that path. He knows the risks. He accepted everything wearing that uniform entails. He's ready to do his part if called into war.

At this time there is no reason for the United States to go to war.

We were not attacked France was so if they want to send their troops to the ME they're free to do so.

If France wants US troops to come to France and help keep order I have no problem with that.

Especially if the troops are provided nice SECURE living quarters and good meals courtesy of the French government.

*****SMILE*****

 

[TemplarKormac]

At this time there is no reason for the United States to go to war.

I wonder, the people calling us armchair generals are being... armchair generals. Who says there isn't a reason? Whether through threats of our own making or threats of a different nature, war, violence, is the only way to abate them. There's always a reason.

We were not attacked France was so if they want to send their troops to the ME they're free to do so.

Sure, but France didn't have to send their soldiers to fight against the revolutionaries way back when. Without them America would more than likely not exist.

If France wants US troops to come to France and help keep order I have no problem with that.

Of course. And when and if it comes down to that, will you still hold that same position "I have no problem with that"?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

At this time there is no reason for the United States to go to war.

I wonder, the people calling us armchair generals are being... armchair generals. Who says there isn't a reason? Whether through threats of our own making or threats of a different nature, war, violence, is the only way to abate them. There's always a reason.

The progressives have always claimed that unless attacked first then we are the aggressors and "War Criminals".

We weren't attacked, France was, so there's no reason to declare war.

We were not attacked France was so if they want to send their troops to the ME they're free to do so.

Sure, but France didn't have to send their soldiers to fight against the revolutionaries way back when. Without them America would more than likely not exist.

France had issues with Britain at the time and were attempting to weaken it's power in the overall scheme of things.

If it wasn't for that they would most likely not have supported the colonial rebellion.

If France wants US troops to come to France and help keep order I have no problem with that.

Of course. And when and if it comes down to that, will you still hold that same position "I have no problem with that"?

Comes down to what?

*****SMILE*****

 

[NightFox]

Any kind of US or NATO military action in the Middle East against ISIS will be a goldmine for ISIS recruiting. However, doing nothing will only strengthen their resolve. The choice is between the lesser of two evils.

It's a mystery to me why some people believe that the only choice is between massive military commitment by the West or doing nothing, it displays a distinct lack of strategic thinking and an inability to see the bigger picture.

"Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do." -- Steve Jobs

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why would the US allow the ME to be a place where people want to live? Bush didn't exactly make the post war period a place where people wanted to live, and he didn't give a fuck who died there either.

So I guess we're forgetting that he helped usher in a period of peace where Iraq held its first democratic elections in decades. I would say that if I were an Iraqi, I would be happy to live in a country where I had power to elect my leaders, whereas before leaders would put themselves in power through dastardly means.

Who wouldn't want to live in a country where their voice mattered? But now, since we've pulled out, all that is gone for them again. ISIS is a regional power, and they would much rather silence the voice than let it speak out.

Democracy huh? Bush loved democracy so much that he helped the coup d'etat against the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Hugo Chavez.
Puuuuuleeease. Bush didn't give a damn if Iraq were democratic or not. What he cared about was having the govt controlled by someone pro-US.

As for this "period of peace", I'm not sure which period of peace you'd be talking about in Iraq since 2003.

The Iraqi murder rate is 8.0.

The US has 4.7

The UK has 1.0

It's lower than South Africa's, but I still wouldn't call it stability. Oh, and there was ISIS bubbling under the surface since 2003 in Iraq too. Great for stability that.

If you were Iraqi, you might view things in a different way to how you're viewing things now. So you get to elect a US puppet instead of having a dictator. Oh, wow, makes a difference does it?

62% turnout for elections, kind of suggests a lot of people aren't into this democracy thing. Sure, similar to apathetic US levels.

Oh, and most people vote based on religious affiliation anyway.

Sunni in blue, Shia in red. Shia have 65% of the Muslim population, Sunni have 34% of the Muslim population (97% Muslim).

Top three parties are Shia. Then Sunni gets in with 5% of the vote somewhere. The Sunnis don't stand a chance, nor do the Kurds. Oh, lovely, democracy where the result is almost a given.

And all thanks to the US choosing, after getting rid of the guy who was in power because the British chose. Wonderful.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Look at your chart, genius:

See that dropoff in civilian deaths from 2009-12? The deaths begin to escalate after we pulled out in 2011. So, what is it you're trying to get at?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Democracy huh? Bush loved democracy so much that he helped the coup d'etat against the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Hugo Chavez.
Puuuuuleeease. Bush didn't give a damn if Iraq were democratic or not. What he cared about was having the govt controlled by someone pro-US.

I guess you'd rather someone like Russia have them then. If it wasn't us, it could be anyone from Russia to Iran. You're so against war that you're willing to abandon people who have repeatedly asked for our help. The Yazidis come to mind, the Coptic Christians in Egypt too.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why would the US allow the ME to be a place where people want to live? Bush didn't exactly make the post war period a place where people wanted to live, and he didn't give a fuck who died there either.

So I guess we're forgetting that he helped usher in a period of peace where Iraq held its first democratic elections in decades. I would say that if I were an Iraqi, I would be happy to live in a country where I had power to elect my leaders, whereas before leaders would put themselves in power through dastardly means.

Who wouldn't want to live in a country where their voice mattered? But now, since we've pulled out, all that is gone for them again. ISIS is a regional power, and they would much rather silence the voice than let it speak out.

Democracy huh? Bush loved democracy so much that he helped the coup d'etat against the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Hugo Chavez.
Puuuuuleeease. Bush didn't give a damn if Iraq were democratic or not. What he cared about was having the govt controlled by someone pro-US.

As for this "period of peace", I'm not sure which period of peace you'd be talking about in Iraq since 2003.

The Iraqi murder rate is 8.0.

The US has 4.7

The UK has 1.0

It's lower than South Africa's, but I still wouldn't call it stability. Oh, and there was ISIS bubbling under the surface since 2003 in Iraq too. Great for stability that.

If you were Iraqi, you might view things in a different way to how you're viewing things now. So you get to elect a US puppet instead of having a dictator. Oh, wow, makes a difference does it?

62% turnout for elections, kind of suggests a lot of people aren't into this democracy thing. Sure, similar to apathetic US levels.

Oh, and most people vote based on religious affiliation anyway.

Sunni in blue, Shia in red. Shia have 65% of the Muslim population, Sunni have 34% of the Muslim population (97% Muslim).

Top three parties are Shia. Then Sunni gets in with 5% of the vote somewhere. The Sunnis don't stand a chance, nor do the Kurds. Oh, lovely, democracy where the result is almost a given.

And all thanks to the US choosing, after getting rid of the guy who was in power because the British chose. Wonderful.

Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for Generations.................Saddam was raping, torturing, and killing them before we came there............They uncovered the mass graves.......................

In the Iran versus Iraq War a Million died............Basically a Sunni versus Shia War.....................

Taking out Sadam shifted the balance of power more towards Shia...........and the Iranians are taking advantage of it.............The Sunni's are pissed and trying to restore their power to the region and are Brutal about it.....................

Welcome to the Middle East...................The True VALLEY OF DEATH in the World............More conflicts over history have been fought there throughout history than any other place on earth..............

 

[frigidweirdo]

Democracy huh? Bush loved democracy so much that he helped the coup d'etat against the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Hugo Chavez.
Puuuuuleeease. Bush didn't give a damn if Iraq were democratic or not. What he cared about was having the govt controlled by someone pro-US.

I guess you'd rather someone like Russia have them then. If it wasn't us, it could be anyone from Russia to Iran. You're so against war that you're willing to abandon people who have repeatedly asked for our help. The Yazidis come to mind, the Coptic Christians in Egypt too.

You'd guess? You'd guess wrong.

Your point seems to be that Bush went into Iraq to help the people of Iraq. Er... he didn't. He didn't give a flying fuck about the people of Iraq, if they died or not, why does he care? His policy directly led to hundreds of thousands of people dying, he I bet he hasn't lost a wink of sleep over it. Not US soldiers's lives and not Iraqi lives.

I'm not necessarily against war. I'm against people going and doing things that aren't right. And what Bush did was not right.

He went in on a false pretext, he LIED about it all, used FAKE evidence to convince people that Saddam had a nuclear program when the CIA told him they almost certain did NOT have a nuclear program.

He wanted to defeat OPEC. That's all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes it does, if you're trying to spin it. Mixed in with all their opposition to US presence, they all shared a dislike of Al-Qaeda, and in 2006, they were mostly convinced their country was going in the right direction.

But hey, it's all puppetry from here, isn't it?

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf

Not really sure why this post disappeared. However I'm not trying to spin anything, I have no need to spin. I'm seeking the truth.

In 2006 there wasn't much direction to be heading in other than the "right direction", do you mean right wing or right as in correct? Iraq was such a mess that anything would have been the correct direction.

Why did Bush go into Iraq?

How do you think an Iraqi would answer this question?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for Generations.................Saddam was raping, torturing, and killing them before we came there............They uncovered the mass graves.......................

In the Iran versus Iraq War a Million died............Basically a Sunni versus Shia War.....................

Taking out Sadam shifted the balance of power more towards Shia...........and the Iranians are taking advantage of it.............The Sunni's are pissed and trying to restore their power to the region and are Brutal about it.....................

Welcome to the Middle East...................The True VALLEY OF DEATH in the World............More conflicts over history have been fought there throughout history than any other place on earth..............

Yes they have. The first point to make is that the British made Iraq, and shouldn't have. They put three groups together that really should have been three countries.

Yes, Saddam was a evil MF, and not many are sad that Saddam is gone. I certain am not. This isn't about Saddam though.

Sure the Iranians are taking advantage of it.

The question is why did the Bush Senior team know this would happen but the Bush junior team either didn't, or didn't care?

Either they were fucking stupid, or they sensed they could get something out of this. What exactly?