welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bush, meet dead horse, here's your bat.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no doubt that MT probably meant it that way, but could you see how I read that? (And might question it?)

Without specifics, what may seem as simple, straightforward comments may not be which is why I asked for clariication. I really wish asking for such clarifications wasn't such a problem...

And as I have said, I am as guilty of this as anybody.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its simple Ags, it has become abundantly clear that the presence of american troops in the middle east, and afghanistan has become a recruiting point for many terrorist organizations. It puts a horrible strain on our troops to be engaged in a war where they do not know if the apple selling granny on the corner is going to strap on a bomb and blow them up. No matter what the training, in a group as large as our army, some people are going to snap and react badly to that kind of stress. (Abu Ghraib being a major recruiting point for the terrorists as well). Now, dismissing out of hand that this is standard procedure, because I DO thnk that we only have a few soldiers willing to do such things, whether ordered to or not, one has to admit that it only takes a few bad apples and a few screwups to FURTHER tarnish our image and discredit what we are ostensibly there to do in the eyes of the muslim community. Having our troops there is not helping the situation, fighting them "on their battlefield" is merely giving them more recruits. Meanwhile, our borders are porous as a loofah, our emergency services STILL arent universally using the same radio frequencies, and anti-terrorism experts are smuggling C4 charges onto airlines to prove a point. Our security starts at home, our military as organized, is not good at fighting the kind of war these people are waging, not while maintaining any sort of moral ground at least.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand that point of view.

My question, to clear up what has apparently become a point of contention between myself and MT, is do you intend the US to remove all troops deployed throughout the world? The way you phrased it, I did not know if you were talking about bringing everybody from everywhere home or not. That would be a large step in an isolationist direction, in my opinion.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, but stationing troops where they are obviously agitating the populace is just a good way to breed anti-american sentiment. Thats my point. Occupying Iraq, when the majority of the people, even those who arent outright hostile to us dont want us to be there is bad strategy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jinx wrote:
Well, you definitely parsed that differently than I did.

I read MT's statement to mean that pulling troops out of those places did not equate to pulling out of all foreign countries, because Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only foreign countries.

So, it's roughly the same as what snorri said, which is that we wouldn't be pulling our troops out of the whole world.

Of course, I think I'm reading it properly and you are not. However, I believe that on MT's response supports my interpretation.


Jinx is right duuude...
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17044
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Quote:
Pull our people out of the middle east and afghanistan, use them to secure our borders and ports,


This statement can be seen as something of isolationist policy. Rather than meet the enemy on their battlefield, let's guard our own borders. I don't think that calling this isolationist is out of the question.


ummmmmm.......do you happen to remember what happened on september 11, 2001? their battlefield was within our borders. the thing that worries people the most is that they will be able to attack us again, in our own country. as they have since done in bali, madrid, london....and for that matter, iraq, since many of the terrorists now there are not iraqis.

see, terrorists don't _have_ a border. their whole thing is that they can attack anywhere, any time. it's not an army that you can see moving from a satellite, with rare exceptions (like bin laden in afghanistan) they don't have a country as their official base of operations - and even bin laden didn't stay to fight for afghanistan, he's apparently cleared out. that's the whole problem with terrorists - they are just a handful of guys on student visas, or citizens of your own country who have been pursuaded by the ideology. and you can't just attack them as if everyone surrounding them was supporting them - because you just alienate those people as well.

what i was trying to lay out (and which i note you have not commented on, even tho sojobo was kind enough to point out that i was laying out a general strategy, not simply attacking bush) was a way to 1) protect ourselves, which is what we mostly want to keep the terrorists from destroying and 2) come up with policies that will (at best) give people other options than terrorism or (at worst) not give them reasons to blame us. (and they _do_ have good reasons to blame us, which predate bush.)

see, this is the real problem with bush's statement. we are already fighting them here - them being here is what started the whole thing. and they can continue to be here, while we are busy stirring up trouble somewhere else.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Except that we have been battling them elsewhere. I'd rather battle them elsewhere. I have no problem battling terrorists within countries that harbor them. It's why I completely supported Israel in their actions against Hezbollah.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Except that we have been battling them elsewhere. I'd rather battle them elsewhere. I have no problem battling terrorists within countries that harbor them. It's why I completely supported Israel in their actions against Hezbollah.



I'd just try to find other ways to battle them.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17044
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok, this is getting ridiculous.

i double posted when i tried to edit, i kept the second one because it had what i wanted to say, and i've now edited _this_ one twice because it keeps cutting out my explanation.
_________________
aka: neverscared!


Last edited by mouse on Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17044
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Except that we have been battling them elsewhere.


yes, and getting nowhere.

you really need to read "the art of war". he starts with a neat analogy of a family of doctors - one performs dificult and heroic cures to advanced diseases, one cures diseases in their earliest stages - and the best of them heads the disease off before it gets started. right now, we are the one fighting a desperate action against a grave situation, and we aren't even finding the cure. we need to be the guy who stops the disease before it even starts. and that will require a whole rethinking of the way we deal with other countries.

blowing them up because we think there might be terrorists there is not going to do it.

(by the way - israel hasn't come out too well against hezbollah. in fact, last i heard, hezbollah was really profiting by the situation, because they have been johnny-on-the-spot, helping people who are homeless, etc., because of israeli retaliation. there's a lesson there - although not the one you might like to draw.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Except that we have been battling them elsewhere. I'd rather battle them elsewhere. I have no problem battling terrorists within countries that harbor them. It's why I completely supported Israel in their actions against Hezbollah.



I disagree. See, other countries are focusing their tactics on investigation work, and heading them off before they can do something. Those countries are actually getting somewhere. We read an awful lot in the news about how England, or denmark or this country or that country managed to stop a plot. Hell they're even managing to do so without gutting their civil rights. I dont see anything from america stopping these attempts. Less military might, more investigation work is how to prevent these things. Al Qaida is a patient and plotting enemy, just because they havent struck again doesnt mean they arent planning to, and between the 9/11 commission report, and several independent studies we're just as unprepared for it as we were in 01.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:35 pm    Post subject: THEY THAT WOULDS'T TRADE LIBERTIES FOR FRUITY TWIZZLERS Reply with quote

The line getting heavy trading in quote-tag invites a number of positional approaches for counterargument.

1. The false dilemma: It's posited that we must fight it in the way we've been fighting it, or else we fight it 'at home.'

2. 'Countries that harbor terrorists' is a category that Iraq firmly didn't fit on, leaving the motivation for that invasion still lined up on the firing line.

3. That infamous pseudoFranklin quote, and

4 (the overall). 'Fighting' terrorists in such a way that more terrorists and more anti-American sentiment is bred is really more like 'losing to' terrorists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
A/T
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Except that we have been battling them elsewhere. I'd rather battle them elsewhere. I have no problem battling terrorists within countries that harbor them. It's why I completely supported Israel in their actions against Hezbollah.


But if you're a member of a peaceful family who wants nothing to do with terror, wars on terror, terrorists or the US, and all of a sudden your house is blown up and half your family is killed because your country allegedly harbors terrorists, I'd say the chances of you becoming a terrorist instead of a farmer, a dentist or a mailman would go up the roof...
Back to top
death_to_dib



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 288
Location: Its getting colder in hell.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ag id like to make the point that just because we are indeed fighting them over there doesnt mean we're safer over here. The funny thing about terrorists is that they dont nessicarily hold themselves in between boarders. Terrorists aren't an organized group with a finite amount of manpower and resources. Any wackjob with a destructive imagination can become a terrorist, and they dont even need someone like osama supporting them to do it. Saying we arent leaving iraq until the terrorists are defeated is asinine. You'll never completely defeat them and not all the terrorists in the world are fighting in Iraq. The ones there just choose to be there because WE happen to be there at the moment. A lot of people with anti-american sympathies but without other means to act upon them, see Iraq as a convienent place to take the fight to the us. So far the only thing our presence has done is recruit for them and draw more into the fight. Its kind of rediculous to me to say you feel like your safer at night because weve got soldiers dodging shrapnel and bullets half a world away and havent really done anything intelligent or useful to secure ourselves at home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
Jinx wrote:
Well, you definitely parsed that differently than I did.

I read MT's statement to mean that pulling troops out of those places did not equate to pulling out of all foreign countries, because Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only foreign countries.

So, it's roughly the same as what snorri said, which is that we wouldn't be pulling our troops out of the whole world.

Of course, I think I'm reading it properly and you are not. However, I believe that on MT's response supports my interpretation.


Jinx is right duuude...


yup.

i was pretty sure the clause "as snorri said" served as a broad enough indicator to avoid amiguity. *sigh* i guess not...one can hope...maybe someday...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group