Would you go?

[Arwin]

The Cold War was a 'fake' war, imagined to create fear? I guess 20,000 nuclear warheads wouldn't scare anyone.

Relevance? I'm sure this followed logically on the previous post in your mind, but forgive me for not getting it.

Hey, Mr. Terrorist. It's the Great Infidels calling again. If we stop blowing you up into next week, can you stop beheading innocent people? Great! Talk to you soon!

'The Great Infidels' have bombed, among others, two weddings. Blah blah blah. Spiral of violence, etc.

 

[Mike Rotch]

I believe so.

Although, all alternatives to invading must be exhausted. As with Iraq, Saddam was given one last chance with resolution 1441 to disarm, he refused.

Are

Alright. But is there not a risk that by invading countries supporting terror networks (and bear in mind the likelihood is that almost all countries hiding terrorists have Arab links*), more enemies are being made in the form of decentralised terror groups? Something like, US invades country A, war ensues, terror splinter groups form and go into hiding, regime toppled, splinter groups flee/hide.

Al-Zarqawi is proof splinter groups are difficult if not impossible to locate. Does the US really want 10, 20, 40, 50 of these sorts of groups floating around. It is them who commits these barbaric acts, not the regimes that hide them, per se.



*Yes, I am aware there is a huge distinction between a Muslim fellow and a fundamentalist.

 

[TheCracker]

The Cold War was a 'fake' war, imagined to create fear? I guess 20,000 nuclear warheads wouldn't scare anyone.

20,000 war heads doesn't make a war!

If it does than what about China?

Hey, Mr. Terrorist. It's the Great Infidels calling again. If we stop blowing you up into next week, can you stop beheading innocent people? Great! Talk to you soon!

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Solid Fro]

Yes, there is always a risk. But, I don't believe terror groups were ever a centralized group. President Bush touched on that a little bit. There is no capital to take over, there is no island to claim, there is no where to plant the American flag in the war against terrorism. That is why I think the Coalition should continue to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, to root out any remaining terrorist groups, to remove any hiding places.

It's like killing a Blackwidow. If you remove all of the places for it to hide, it's easy pickings for the Raid canister.



Arwin, you are forgiven for not getting it. Any of it.

 

[Arwin]

Arwin, you are forgiven for not getting it. Any of it.

Just thought you were replying to me, but I now see you were referring to TheCracker's post. As far as the 'any of it', well ... you live in your world, I live in ours.

 

[Solid Fro]

20,000 war heads doesn't make a war!

The only thing that stopped it from being a war was mutually assured destruction.

If it does than what about China?

What about China? Should we disarm them because they have WMD too!

WTF are you talking about?

You didn't get it either?

If we pull out of Iraq, it doesn't stop. If we listen to the French, it doesn't stop. If John Kerry becomes president, it doesn't stop. If we stick our heads in the sand, it doesn't stop. Al-Qaeda and other terror groups have declared war on you and me. They will not stop. They would kill themselves to hurt us.

 

[ledhed]

Removing terrorist sanctuarys is just one step to removing terrorist. You also must remove regimes that support or sponsor terrorist acts . Saddam supported Al Queda and other terrorist he was also quite willing to send a hit squad to the US to assinate the president or are we forgeting this ? Saddam was a danger in that not only could he harbor terrorist but he could supply them with weapons and money. He had the cababilty to produce biological and chemical agents. Now knowing that it only takes a few SUITCASES full of biological or chemical weapons to kill many thousands and that Saddam has used these weapons in the past , do you TRUST that Saddam would not supply them to a terror orginization to deliver them to us ? For ten years he was bottled up with NO END IN SIGHT . The UN had ample oportunity to deal with him and FAILED. He should have been attacked the FIRST time he threw out the weapons inspectors or fired missles as a US plane patrolling the no fly zone. Instead he was allowed to play the world for fools for ten years after he LOST a war of his own making. saddam was given ten too many years to cause his brand of trouble after he lost his war in Kuwait. Think of all the people who would still be around or not crippled or raped if the UN would have performed its duty !
Take your head out of the sand. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. If your country harbors or supports terrorist then YOU HAVE A PROBLEM your mortgage on your countrys government may be forclosed . This is how it should be unless you want to close your eyes and make believe they and thier threat do not exist.

 

[Mike Rotch]

That is why I think the Coalition should continue to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, to root out any remaining terrorist groups, to remove any hiding places.

How realistic is that - to root out all terrorist groups? I think it is an impossibility. If they feel the net closing in Iraq, they slip into Iran, then Pakistan, then Afganistan, then the Phillipines...it never ends.

That is what I am getting at. It isnt a war that can be won. But giving up isnt the answer either. I dont know what the solution is, but I would think the US is too far involved now to pick up her skirt and run now. But they hardly seem effective in stopping the terrorist attacks in Iraq, as it is.

 

[TheCracker]

If we pull out of Iraq, it doesn't stop. If we listen to the French, it doesn't stop. If John Kerry becomes president, it doesn't stop. If we stick our heads in the sand, it doesn't stop.

If you never went in in the the first place there would be no reason for it to stop


Here in the UK we have lived with a very real terrorist threat since the 60's (if not longer) in the form of the IRA. How has that threat been neutralized? - by over running northern ireland with military force - No, that didn't work, it just turned more people against the British govenment and turned IRA members into local heros and martyrs. The heavier handed the army got, the more support the IRA got (is this senario sounding at all familiar?) In the end the British Govenment and the IRA had to speak and listen to one another and compromise into a powersharing situation which is still being resolved as we speak.

Al-Qaeda and other terror groups have declared war on you and me. They will not stop. They would kill themselves to hurt us.

Terror groups don't want to kill you and I, they are opossed to our govenments actions, if we happen to get in the way of their 'protests' than so be it, they are martyrs to their beliefs and value only their causes, lives lost, whether theirs or ours are largely irrelevant. How will doing more of what they are opposed to help matters? The whole 'War on Terror' ideal is pointless - you can't 'fight' an invisible enemy - you have to try to resolve your differences or work out what you did to create them in the first place.

You Americans may feel like the worlds become a less safer place since 9/11, but most of the rest of the world feels as if the world became less safe since we attacked Iraq.

 

[TheCracker]

Take your head out of the sand. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. If your country harbors or supports terrorist then YOU HAVE A PROBLEM your mortgage on your countrys government may be forclosed . This is how it should be unless you want to close your eyes and make believe they and thier threat do not exist.

America harbors its own terrorists, they usually call themselve 'patriots' and they hate your govenment as much as Al Queda do. Do you propose that you should 'freeze' your own govenments assets? - This is how it should be unless you want to close your eyes and make believe they and their threat do not exist.

perhaps the war should be fought closer to home before you have the right to sort out other countries 'problems'

 

[Ghost C]

Here in the UK we have lived with a very real terrorist threat since the 60's (if not longer) in the form of the IRA. How has that threat been neutralized? - by over running northern ireland with military force - No, that didn't work, it just turned more people against the British govenment and turned IRA members into local heros and martyrs. The heavier handed the army got, the more support the IRA got (is this senario sounding at all familiar?) In the end the British Govenment and the IRA had to speak and listen to one another and compromise into a powersharing situation which is still being resolved as we speak.

So we should share the control of our country with terrorists? That's a peachy-keen idea! Now I remember why I don't like people in the UK.

Terror groups don't want to kill you and I

I've got $10 that says you're wrong.

you have to try to resolve your differences or work out what you did to create them in the first place.

So a woman walking down the street who gets raped by someone she doesn't know should figure out what she did to deserve the rape? That's brilliant reasoning.

You Americans may feel like the worlds become a less safer place since 9/11, but most of the rest of the world feels as if the world became less safe since we attacked Iraq.

I like it when people speak for several billion other persons who they don't know anything about, because let's face it, America is just plain evil and nobody likes us.

Excuse me while I go take a bath in crude oil and stab random Muslims on the street while I wear nothing but the American flag.

 

[TheCracker]

Sir, your reasoning is overly simplistic, and ego over inflated

no one can argue with your pigheaded ideals, its like banging your head against a brick wall!

So a woman walking down the street who gets raped by someone she doesn't know should figure out what she did to deserve the rape? That's brilliant reasoning.

A women who walks down the street and gets raped by someone she doesn't know, has been attacked unprovoked, had she been informed in advance, say by her own intelligence agency, that if she walked down a certain street she might be attacked, she might of had the inteligence to avoid it.

I think using the example of a women being raped for your arguement in very bad taste and totally inappropriate.

 

[milefile]

How realistic is that - to root out all terrorist groups? I think it is an impossibility. If they feel the net closing in Iraq, they slip into Iran, then Pakistan, then Afganistan, then the Phillipines...it never ends.

I disagree. It has been made clear that any government that harbors or aids terrorists is an enemy of the US and will not be tolerated. It has been shown that governments seem to take this seriously. Hunting down terrorists will probably never end, but it is worth every drop of blood, every second, and every dime spent. We don't throw up our arms and give up when we acknowledge that other crimes will never completely stop no matter what we do, do we?

 

[Ghost C]

A women who walks down the street and gets raped by someone she doesn't know, has been attacked unprovoked, had she been informed in advance, say by her own intelligence agency, that if she walked down a certain street she might be attacked, she might of had the inteligence to avoid it.

So in effect you're suggesting we should've just launched a French-style pre-emptive strike and surrendered our country to terrorists before 9/11 ever happened? Because the only way to avoid conflict with terrorists is to be one of them.

I think using the example of a women being raped for your arguement in very bad taste and totally inappropriate.

I think your suggestion that the US did something to deserve the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, or the suggestion that we should share control of our country with them, are both in very bad taste, and totally inappropriate.

 

[TheCracker]

I think your suggestion that the US did something to deserve the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, or the suggestion that we should share control of our country with them, are both in very bad taste, and totally inappropriate.

I would never say that the US did something do deserve 9/11 - no one deserves that abomination. What i was saying is that your govenment must have troden on one-too-many toes, and a group of people have taken major offence by your actions.

When did i say that america should share control of its homelands with terrorists??? - my example of the Northern Ireland situation was to show that the American 'kill or be killed' method isn't always (or even ever) the best way, especially when it seems to cause more problems than it solves.

 

[Arwin]

I don't think any country deserves 3000 dead, but let's also not pretend that the US did nothing to provoke it.

 

[ledhed]

what could the US have done that would justify flying a loaded aircraft into a building full of innocent people ? Are you insane Arwin ? Lets not pretend Saddam did nothing to provoke an invasion , lets not pretend that the Taliban did not provoke an invasion, lets not pretend that Al Queda did nothing to provoke thier extinction. Lets not PRETEND that the US will not do anything within its power to see that terrorist and thier supporters will be hunted to extinction.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think any country deserves 3000 dead, but let's also not pretend that the US did nothing to provoke it.

It's impossible to say that any country did nothing to provoke anything. But we can't pretend the attack on 9/11 was justifiable to any degree.

 

[Arwin]

what could the US have done that would justify flying a loaded aircraft into a building full of innocent people ?

I'm not going to answer that question, because it bears no relation to what I just said. I said 'nothing to provoke', not 'nothing to justify'.

 

[Zrow]

Of course it bears relation to what you said! Are you even serious?

 

[Arwin]

Of course it bears relation to what you said! Are you even serious?

You're going to contest with me that provoke and justify mean the same thing? Especially in this context, I'd say that the difference is rather important. But you disagree? Or do you want to lamely claim that 'it bears relation' if only because ledhed's post reacts to mine ... I wouldn't mind that if we were talking about something involving the other sex, but in this case I do mind.

 

[ledhed]

I will rephrase that . What did the US do to PROVOKE terrorist to fly planeloads of peoples into two buildings, the Pentagon and the ground ? What did the innocent people who died do tp provoke them ? How can you possibly sit there and make excuses for these people ?
NOTHING can justify what happened no matter WHAT was done to PROVOKE these idiots.
The US will hunt them kill them andremove governments that support them BECAUSE what they did was unjustifiable.

 

[Zrow]

I didn't say that they were the same thing, I said that they weren't unrelated. You acted as though they were two totally different subjects things and you couldn't see why he used the term 'justify'.

 

[the_cobbinator]

I kinda got here late, but I would like to commend milefile for his outsatnding composition. I think, with your permission of course, I would like to bring this into school and show it to my history teacher.

 

[Arwin]

I will rephrase that . What did the US do to PROVOKE terrorist to fly planeloads of peoples into two buildings, the Pentagon and the ground ? What did the innocent people who died do tp provoke them ? How can you possibly sit there and make excuses for these people ?
NOTHING can justify what happened no matter WHAT was done to PROVOKE these idiots.
The US will hunt them kill them andremove governments that support them BECAUSE what they did was unjustifiable.

No, Ledhed, provoke and excuse are also not the same words. 👎

 

[///M-Spec]

You're going to contest with me that provoke and justify mean the same thing? Especially in this context, I'd say that the difference is rather important.

I think it is still a poor word choice, Arwin. As common used in the English language, the term provoke implies justification.

He provoked an attack. That implies the person did something and the response was natural, reasonable and understandable. Like hitting a dog with a stick provokes him into biting you.

There's not much understandable or natural about taking out your frustrations on 3,000 strangers you've never met and have little or no connection with how you feel about your world.

That'd be like if ledhed showed up at your door and beat you senseless with a bat and I said, "well Arwin provoked ledhed into the attack."


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Conversely, I think a lot of Americans underestimate how poorly received our support for Israel, our history of meddling in the middle east and our support for oppressive regimes friendly to us (Saudis) has been by the arab world.

I mean, giving money to their worst enemy (Israel) and dodging attempts at making them behave themselves (UN security council) doesn't exactly put us in a good light.


M

 

[Arwin]

I think it is still a poor word choice, Arwin. As common used in the English language, the term provoke implies justification.

He provoked an attack. That implies the person did something and the response was natural, reasonable and understandable. Like hitting a dog with a stick provokes him into biting you.

There's not much understandable or natural about taking out your frustrations on 3,000 strangers you've never met and have little or no connection with how you feel about your world.

That'd be like if ledhed showed up at your door and beat you senseless with a bat and I said, "well Arwin provoked ledhed into the attack."

M

No, provoke is normally a neutral word. The first three definitions (for those unfamiliar with how dictionaries work, they are ordered in use frequency) are neutral, only the 4th is the definition you and ledhed see in it. I indicated in my first response very clearly that I think the killing of 3000 people wasn't justified.

pro·voke ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vk)
tr.v. pro·voked, pro·vok·ing, pro·vokes
1. To incite to anger or resentment.
2. To stir to action or feeling.
3. To give rise to; evoke: provoke laughter.
4. To bring about deliberately; induce: provoke a fight.

However, I think ledhed reacts strongly because he probably knows I don't consider the US to be innocent in the matter either - by involving itself in several violent conflicts and taking sides, it should not be surprised if it gains enemies. (EDIT: Ah, you're one post ahead of me there M-Spec.)

Even if you do read provoke in that (4th) sense, provoke is still a word that is still more suitable than justify or excuse, and as I am a lot more of a pacifist than him, I take offense to having my words twisted to make it seem like I condone the killing of 3000.

 

[///M-Spec]

No, provoke is normally a neutral word. The first three definitions (for those unfamiliar with how dictionaries work, they are ordered in use frequency) are neutral, only the 4th is the definition you and ledhed see in it. I indicated in my first response very clearly that I think the killing of 3000 people wasn't justified.

pro·voke ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vk)
tr.v. pro·voked, pro·vok·ing, pro·vokes
1. To incite to anger or resentment.
2. To stir to action or feeling.
3. To give rise to; evoke: provoke laughter.
4. To bring about deliberately; induce: provoke a fight.

However, I think ledhed reacts strongly because he probably knows I don't consider the US to be innocent in the matter either - by involving itself in several violent conflicts and taking sides, it should not be surprised if it gains enemies. (EDIT: Ah, you're one post ahead of me there M-Spec.)

Even if you do read provoke in that (4th) sense, provoke is still a word that is still more suitable than justify or excuse, and as I am a lot more of a pacifist than him, I take offense to having my words twisted to make it seem like I condone the killing of 3000.

Fair enough. Let's write it off as a culture difference. The vast majority of Americans will disagree with your usage, so it shouldn't surprise you either that ledhed and others will react with outrage and resentment at your choice of words.

I presume you are dutch, correct? Where did you study english? I'm just curious; no need to read anything into the question. And for the record, you would agree that my last statement in the previous post is accurate?


M

 

[milefile]

Resorting to dictionaries is weak. Common usages often vary from dictionary definitions. Everybody knows this until they want to split hairs. Only then does the dictionary become the final word.