Bomb Makers have to eat too.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It's far more preferable to disarm terrorists by removing reasons to hate you.

Sorry but i cant change the fact that i am an "infidel christian western american male."

[nemafakei]

"Its this type of liberal closemindedness that irritates me"

In what sense has this closedmindedness to do with belief in freedom?

"Liberals just dont understand that Hamas/al Qaeda will always have a reason to hate you.... unless you change your religion or citizenship"

Please don't make such ridiculous generalisations. Not all liberals think X, not only liberals think X. And frankly, I don't see what liberalism has to do with it anyway.

To the point at issue, though:

You may be hated by a few fundamentalists among Hamas and Al-Quaeda for being (i) christian and (ii) of american culture (infidel amounting to the same as christian, american counting for western, too, and frankly, they're not asking you to change your gender). But that's not why they get support. They get support because US foreign policy is seen as oppressive and threatening, they get support because people see they have nothing but their lives to lose, whereas all wealth seems to be going in the direction of the US. They get support because of how you act, not what you are. This is evident in the offer that Al-Quaeda made to leave any (European?) country alone that promises not to attack musilms - in order to motivate their support, they tried to demonstrate that their targets were indeed willing to attack muslim countries, and they succeeded: every European country, as far as I can remember, condemned the idea of giving into terrorists, gave them the fuel they needed - even though most, if not all, had no intention of attacking muslim countries.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"Its this type of liberal closemindedness that irritates me"

In what sense has this closedmindedness to do with belief in freedom?

"Liberals just dont understand that Hamas/al Qaeda will always have a reason to hate you.... unless you change your religion or citizenship"

Please don't make such ridiculous generalisations. Not all liberals think X, not only liberals think X. And frankly, I don't see what liberalism has to do with it anyway.

To the point at issue, though:

You may be hated by a few fundamentalists among Hamas and Al-Quaeda for being (i) christian and (ii) of american culture (infidel amounting to the same as christian, american counting for western, too, and frankly, they're not asking you to change your gender). But that's not why they get support. They get support because US foreign policy is seen as oppressive and threatening, they get support because people see they have nothing but their lives to lose, whereas all wealth seems to be going in the direction of the US. They get support because of how you act, not what you are. This is evident in the offer that Al-Quaeda made to leave any (European?) country alone that promises not to attack musilms - in order to motivate their support, they tried to demonstrate that their targets were indeed willing to attack muslim countries, and they succeeded: every European country, as far as I can remember, condemned the idea of giving into terrorists, gave them the fuel they needed - even though most, if not all, had no intention of attacking muslim countries.

Giving into terrorists demands will only give them more support and emboldened them.

[nemafakei]

I'm not saying we should negotiate with terrorists.

I'm saying that we should take up the initiative and improve people's lives so that they don't need to resort to terrorism to have their voice heard, so that they can see that we want to treat people in other parts of the world with the same respect that we treat ourselves, rather than letting the situation get worse and worse until it affects us, waiting and letting the terrorists be the ones to provoke change.

[Megashrap]

I'm saying that we should take up the initiative and improve people's lives so that they don't need to resort to terrorism to have their voice heard

  Yes, and giving Iraq its own independance IS doing just that, improving their lives.  I mean it's not like were trying to accomplish that and at the same time trying to stuff christianity down their throats as well that I could understand.

[nemafakei]

It may have been good in the long run for the Iraqi people - but the war (in the way it was done) was not the only course of action that would benefit them.

I would have supported an effort to remove Saddam Hussein, if it was an honest effort to do good in the world - and perceived as such. But the war on Iraq was conduct in such a way as to openly defy the UN, on whose grounds the war was ostensibly committed, in the name of destroying another country's arms, which didn't even exist... I could go on naming ways in which the war on Iraq could be construed as absolute hubris by many in the Arab world, thereby boosting support for reactionary terrorist groups.

[Megashrap]

But the war on Iraq was conduct in such a way as to openly defy the UN

  However, the main opponents that were against the U.S. and it's efforts in passing the resolution somehow seemed to all agree that it was in the best interest of Iraq and prosperous for the outcome. Although they didnt want to offer military aid or financial assistance.  Which basically left

the U.S. with the burdon itself to "spank some ass" while some stand aside and view us as being the abusive daddy in thier eyes.

[nemafakei]

"However, the main opponents that were against the U.S. and it's efforts in passing the resolution somehow seemed to all agree that it* was in the best interest of Iraq and prosperous for the outcome"

*it being getting rid of Saddam Hussein? If so, yes, but not in the way the US wanted to do it, because of the insenitivity it entailed!+++

Can you really not see that attacking arab and muslim countries in that sort of headstrong manner is the last thing you want to do in order to recover credibility among muslims, or are you just trying to divert the issue?

[Megashrap]

*it being getting rid of Saddam Hussein? If so, yes, but not in the way the US wanted to do it, because of the insenitivity it entailed!+++

Can you really not see that attacking arab and muslim countries in that sort of headstrong manner is the last thing you want to do in order to recover credibility among muslims, or are you just trying to divert the issue?

  insenitivity it entailed?  headstrong manner?  The only thing that I have gathered from your question is that warfare should somhow be a kinder gentler "smack on the hand" response in order to satisfy the way others think and view the world and would like it to be.  But then again we are in a real world, not a fantasy world.

 

And by the way, ask any U.S. Marine in Fallujah about now or even at the start of the war if he's worried about appeasing Muslims when bullets are zipping near his head, and his buddies are dying.

[Dante]

You are not seeing the big picture..... imagine the beheadings and kidnappings and slaughter that would have went on for the rest of Saddam's life and his sons life and their sons lives..... a multi-century reign by the Saddam family would have produced more bloodshed than the tiny invasion we performed.

Wake up.

1- Prove it.

2- Even the strictest regimes, especially those in fact, do not last forever.

3- It

[Megashrap]

 

Warfare shouldn

[Dante]

It's attitudes like that which make it a fantasy.

[desertway]

I don't necessarily agree with our Government on how or where they spend our tax dollars. I do know for certain that we do indeed need a military budget. Saying things like "we shouldn't have to stockpile weapons" doesn't make the need go away. I AGREE , "we shouldn't have to". But we do have very real enemies with very real dangers. Until such time as I move to Neverland, I don't ever see us not needing a military. And as long as there are militaries there will always be advancement in how we kill our enemies. The fact is if we don't come up with it first, our enemies will. Do you really want the terrorists of the world to be the only ones building and developing weopons? And when we build them we will than need to train troops to use them. It's a cold hard fact of life. Yes I know you will say attitudes like mine are what cause this. That's fine as well. The fact that these attitudes exist is all the more reason to support your militaries.

I would like to live in a world without terrorism and war as much as anyone. We all have fantasies, but that's all they are is fantasy. If anyone truly beleives that militarys should just stop preparing for war...they are living in their fantasy world and need see a Doctor to get back to reality. 

[Megashrap]

Dante, gentle and war will never somehow blend together, same goes for negotiating and terrorist.  I'm simply showing in a toungue n cheek way to show how absurd it sounds and would be in your perfect fantasy world  why? because all i've gathered thusfar in this arguement is;

1. We should negotiate with terrorist

2. That somehow the U.S. just invaded for no reason, an innocent independance bearing country for the purpose of merely "showing our might".

3. That we are killing/wounding innocent "freedom fighters" that are defending their country.

4. Insurgents are by no means egual to actual terrorist.

5. And that in the event we do decide along with others that force is warranted it should be much more gentle and compassionate.

  Which are ALL false, with the exception of 5 which is nothing more than hoping for "The perfect fantasy world" by your logic.

[nemafakei]

"The only thing that I have gathered from your question is that warfare should somhow be a kinder gentler "smack on the hand" response in order to satisfy the way others think and view the world and would like it to be"

How about reading what I write rather than what you think I'm writing? I mentioned nothing about "smack on the hand". I have no problem with terrorists being made to suffer - it's when innocent people are made to suffer unnecessarily that I object.

How about trying to help people instead of kill them? It's a lot more effective at persuading.

"And by the way, ask any U.S. Marine in Fallujah about now or even at the start of the war if he's worried about appeasing Muslims when bullets are zipping near his head, and his buddies are dying"

Then every marine in Fallujah has got his priorities wrong and shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Megashrap]

You

[GUNWOUNDS]

it seems many people in this thread have no idea what "Collateral Damage"

[nemafakei]

To what is this a reference?

[GUNWOUNDS]

To what is this a reference?

it is a reference to this below ....

"I have no problem with terrorists being made to suffer - it's when innocent people are made to suffer unnecessarily that I object.

and numerous other comments like this that you and dante have spurted out as if the rest of us are somehow barbarians.  When in actuality you dont understand what collateral damage is.

[Megashrap]

Inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations is very relavant in this arguement, but yet seems to be totally and conveniently void in many others.  Nevertheless, it IS a fact that holds true wether one chooses to acknowledge it or not.

[Megashrap]

How about trying to help people instead of kill them? It's a lot more effective at persuading.

  If one cannot see for themselves the attempts and help for the Iraqis that they clearly will benifit from, then it really does no good for me to argue or debate about it.

[nemafakei]

"If one cannot see for themselves the attempts and help for the Iraqis that they clearly will benifit from, then it really does no good for me to argue or debate about it"

"It may have been good in the long run for the Iraqi people - but the war (in the way it was done) was not the only course of action that would benefit them", ff.

Gunwounds

Read what you've quoted: "unnecessarily"

I accept that some loss of innocent life may be necessary for long term stability, but the question I have repeadly been making is whether attempts to depose Hussein have been prepared and executed in a way which minimises such loss of life.

And collateral damage of the war as a whole does not just include innocents killed bombing enemies, it includes those who die because of riots caused by invasion, because of destruction of the infrastructure in the invasion, those killed by unexploded bombs, and by the terrorists themselves who have been given the opportinity by the invasion and occupation.

I'm not saying every death was forseeable and avoidable. But I am saying that too many could have been prevented and weren't.

And remember that this is all a digression on whether the US is seen as an agressor in the eyes of muslims. It's not me that the US must act to convince. It's the people of Iraq, it's the people of Afghanistan, it's anyone who might see any reason to support terrorists out of resentment towards US policy.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm not saying every death was forseeable and avoidable. But I am saying that too many could have been prevented and weren't.

And remember that this is all a digression on whether the US is seen as an agressor in the eyes of muslims. It's not me that the US must act to convince. It's the people of Iraq, it's the people of Afghanistan, it's anyone who might see any reason to support terrorists out of resentment towards US policy.

Unfortunately though this is so ambiguous as to not be taken seriously by the united states.

I guess what you are asking needs to be outlined better.

[nemafakei]

Beg pardon?

"Unfortunately though this* is so ambiguous as to not be taken seriously by the united states."

* By which you mean?

"I guess what you are asking* needs to be outlined better.  Not by you of course but by someone important in politics"

* That the US should treat people of the rest of the world on a level footing with its own citizens as regards their rights? Thet they should listen to and cooperate with the international community - and be seen to do so? That they should promote economic and environmental policies geared less towards private profit and more towards eliminating world poverty?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Beg pardon?

"Unfortunately though this* is so ambiguous as to not be taken seriously by the united states."

* By which you mean?

"I guess what you are asking* needs to be outlined better.