View Poll Results: When should the United States of America go to war?

Voters
111. You may not vote on this poll
  • Always (I'll be surprised if anyone chooses this)

    6 5.41%
  • Frequently.

    0 0%
  • Often

    0 0%
  • Only when moderately necessary.

    4 3.60%
  • Sometimes.

    2 1.80%
  • When necessary.

    33 29.73%
  • Only when extremely necessary.

    30 27.03%
  • Rarely.

    4 3.60%
  • Almost never.

    8 7.21%
  • Never (Probably more people will choose this than the other extreme).

    24 21.62%
Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 222

Thread: When should the United States of America go to war?

  1. #201
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Thank you for picking nits....
    always aim to please...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  2. #202
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Yes, I think I will need to review the Crusades history. I apologize if I were mistaken.
    The witch-hunts didn't kill small numbers of people. It killed millions of people, more than what terrorists kill today
    The Spanish Inquisition was bloody as most terrorists attacks.

    Also, the reason why I bring up ancient Christian history is because Chickie keeps defending Christianity like it never committed a crime, and keeps attacking Islam because only a small number of its believers kill people regularly. Don't get me wrong, the modern church did undeniable good to the current world of chaos. Yet it has a dark history, and I just wants to point out that Islam is going through another dark history period like Christianity did before. Every religion does, maybe except for Buddhism.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  3. #203
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Anyway, let's please get back on topic, on when the US should go to war. This religious discussion has been held long enough.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Those documents have been available since 2003 and were considered by the committee when it prepared its report.
    The Phase 2 committee report was a ****ing partisan hatchet job, people want to claim that it had a Republican majority but it was Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter on that committee that gave them the majority, as we now know the chairman of the Committee Arlen Specter was as anti-Bush as they come, the non-partisan Pentagon review of the DOCEX release made abundantly clear that Saddam had a working relationship with Jihadist organizations (including AQ affiliates) and was plotting with them to attack the U.S..

    They confirm what we already knew about Saddam. He collaborated with Islamists on occasion, mainly to help prepare for the possibility of an invasion by the US, but had no working relationship with Al Qaeda or its goals.
    I said AQ affiliates, and no it was not just in relation to a possible U.S. invasion. He was planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. not just an insurgency. Read the article. Read the actual document I provided the go through the Pentagon Review, there's a lot there.

  5. #205
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    Yes, I think I will need to review the Crusades history. I apologize if I were mistaken.
    The witch-hunts didn't kill small numbers of people. It killed millions of people, more than what terrorists kill today
    Dude seriously wtf are you talking about?

    The Spanish Inquisition was bloody as most terrorists attacks.
    No actually the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for only slight more than 1,000 executions during it's entire 400 year span which is less than are killed annually by Islamic radicals. Islamic Imperialists by their own historical records document 100,000 Hindus killed in a single day on the Indian Subcontinent.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-14-10 at 01:53 AM.

  6. #206
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    Yes, I think I will need to review the Crusades history. I apologize if I were mistaken.
    The witch-hunts didn't kill small numbers of people. It killed millions of people, more than what terrorists kill today
    The Spanish Inquisition was bloody as most terrorists attacks.

    Also, the reason why I bring up ancient Christian history is because Chickie keeps defending Christianity like it never committed a crime, and keeps attacking Islam because only a small number of its believers kill people regularly. Don't get me wrong, the modern church did undeniable good to the current world of chaos. Yet it has a dark history, and I just wants to point out that Islam is going through another dark history period like Christianity did before. Every religion does, maybe except for Buddhism.
    Don't remember who brought it up originally.

    Your comment about the Spanish Inquisition has already been addressed. English-language history books have long exaggerated the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, there is a long anti-Catholic current in the English language compliments of the king who started his Church for the purpose of getting a divorse...

    The Christians are not perfect, no one is, but I would take the history of Christianity over the history of Islam any day of the week..

    And as for Buddhists, while I have the utmost respect for the faith, there is a long history of Buddhist atrocities against other religions as well and did you know there are Buddhist terrorists today???
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #207
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,874
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    And as for Buddhists, while I have the utmost respect for the faith, there is a long history of Buddhist atrocities against other religions as well and did you know there are Buddhist terrorists today???
    who are the Buddist terrorists today?
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  8. #208
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    who are the Buddist terrorists today?
    Southern Thailand...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #209
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    915

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The Phase 2 committee report was a ****ing partisan hatchet job, people want to claim that it had a Republican majority but it was Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter on that committee that gave them the majority, as we now know the chairman of the Committee Arlen Specter was as anti-Bush as they come, the non-partisan Pentagon review of the DOCEX release made abundantly clear that Saddam had a working relationship with Jihadist organizations (including AQ affiliates) and was plotting with them to attack the U.S..



    I said AQ affiliates, and no it was not just in relation to a possible U.S. invasion. He was planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. not just an insurgency. Read the article. Read the actual document I provided the go through the Pentagon Review, there's a lot there.
    It's interesting that you call the work of the bipartisan committee a partisan hatchet job but refer to the Pentagon, which is run by a political appointee of the president, as non-partisan. Especially interesting since we know that Rumsfeld's DOD was responsible for skewing the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

    Leaving all that aside, though, and assuming the Iraqi Perspectives Project is accurate, it doesn't support the conclusions you're trying to draw from it. What it shows is that Iraq drew operatives from the same demographic as jihadist organizations and that both were interested in getting American forces out of Muslim lands. Iraq did use or try to use terrorist tactics and assassinations within its sphere of influence, for example in the Kurdish region and against Iraqi dissidents. It also supported terrorist activity against Iran, just as the US is doing today. It deliberately attacked UN workers, much as Israel has done albeit more extensively. It supported various factions in the Israel/Palestine arena, again like Western nations and Iran have done and continue to do. Most of these tactics are despicable, but to an intelligence analyst they're no different from what any ambitious regime would do in order to maximize its influence in the region.

    They are different from what Al Qaeda has done in terms of targeting the US directly. Saddam was apparently trying to locate suicide bombers who had been willing to attack American interests in 1991 in response to Desert Storm. He also expressed a potential willingness to use them against the US if we attacked him again, but there's no evidence that he planned to initiate an attack against us. The documents overall tend to show that Iraq was cautious about antagonizing the US.

    The more sensational conclusions are drawn not from the IPP but from the work of bloggers and special interest publications who read the documents without any sense of context. Indeed, this appears to be exactly what the Bush administration intended, since the database was seeded with documents on Al Qaeda activity that wasn't even related to Iraq. Talk radio then picked up where the DOD had left off, cherry-picking anything that looked incriminating while ignoring the Senate's more thorough review and even ignoring the statements of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which told the Senate committee:

    DIA officials explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq's links to terrorism. During an interview with Committee staff, the lead DIA analyst who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qa'ida noted that the DIA "continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations."

    Operation Iraqi Freedom documents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by Winston Smith; 08-14-10 at 01:01 PM.

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: When should the United States of America go to war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    It's interesting that you call the work of the bipartisan committee a partisan hatchet job but refer to the Pentagon, which is run by a political appointee of the president, as non-partisan.
    The Phase 2 Report was an anti-war protest put on paper.


    Especially interesting since we know that Rumsfeld's DOD was responsible for skewing the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.
    The report was written in 2007 Rumsfeld was gone in 2006, and the last I heard Rumsfeld didn't write or influence the writing of the 2002 NIE and the Phase 1 Senate Report determined that intelligence analysts were in fact not pressured by the White House.

    Leaving all that aside, though, and assuming the Iraqi Perspectives Project is accurate, it doesn't support the conclusions you're trying to draw from it. What it shows is that Iraq drew operatives from the same demographic as jihadist organizations and that both were interested in getting American forces out of Muslim lands. Iraq did use or try to use terrorist tactics and assassinations within its sphere of influence, for example in the Kurdish region and against Iraqi dissidents. It also supported terrorist activity against Iran, just as the US is doing today.
    According to who? Iran?

    It deliberately attacked UN workers, much as Israel has done albeit more extensively.
    Wow you're FOS, it has since been proven that Hezbollah was intentionally setting up positions around UN facilities as cover.

    It supported various factions in the Israel/Palestine arena, again like Western nations and Iran have done and continue to do. Most of these tactics are despicable, but to an intelligence analyst they're no different from what any ambitious regime would do in order to maximize its influence in the region.

    They are different from what Al Qaeda has done in terms of targeting the US directly. Saddam was apparently trying to locate suicide bombers who had been willing to attack American interests in 1991 in response to Desert Storm. He also expressed a potential willingness to use them against the US if we attacked him again, but there's no evidence that he planned to initiate an attack against us. The documents overall tend to show that Iraq was cautious about antagonizing the US.

    The more sensational conclusions are drawn not from the IPP but from the work of bloggers and special interest publications who read the documents without any sense of context. Indeed, this appears to be exactly what the Bush administration intended, since the database was seeded with documents on Al Qaeda activity that wasn't even related to Iraq. Talk radio then picked up where the DOD had left off, cherry-picking anything that looked incriminating while ignoring the Senate's more thorough review and even ignoring the statements of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which told the Senate committee:
    Well that's interesting because I never claimed that Saddam had a working relationship with AQ proper. I said he was plotting attacks against the U.S. with Jihadist organizations including AQ affiliates.


    Here's the entire report:

    http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/...ntagonvol1.pdf

    The article I provided supplied direct quotes from the reports conclusions:

    The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.
    It, also, posted quotes from a prior skeptic of the Saddam-Jihadist ties:

    Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •