• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When should the United States of America go to war?

When should the United States of America go to war?


  • Total voters
    72
The Spanish Inquisition got a bunch of people. You can say that not many deaths happened from their trials. But the trials were a witch hunt of sorts and shouldn't have happened in the first place. And there were a lot of trials. So sure, few could have yielded death sentences; but because there was so many that still means a significant number of people were put to death. And the Spanish Inquisition is not the only inquisition to be had. Additionally there great battles in Europe against varying sects of Christianity. And the tradition of protestant vs catholic is alive today (though maybe not quite as violent anymore) in places like Ireland. Christianity was used a lot for warfare, particularly between crowns in Europe. The main thing with Christianity is that eventually we divorced it from our governments and allowed religion to be free. And when we did, we saw that religion started to become far less violent. But you can't pretend like Christianity never did anything bad. State religions get abused.
 
Saddam was plotting with Islamic Extremists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad.

I hear he wanted Bush Sr. dead, and that was the reason Bush Jr. invaded Iraq....That is more believeable than Saddam wanting to attack the U. S.
Saddam had already had his butt kicked in the first Gulf war, he was all talk by the time the second war was being considered.
 
are you the one taking the statement "most terrorists are muslim" and converting it to "most muslims are terrorists" which clearly is not the same thing.

Except she did say the second and not the first. It's not my fault, and I did not make it up. That would have been the point of my quoting her stating it.
 
Except she did say the second and not the first. It's not my fault, and I did not make it up. That would have been the point of my quoting her stating it.
Well, somebody can't read....go to her post, number 133, then your response, number 135. read very, very carefully....
she did NOT say the second, did say the first....
If you have proof, tell me the post number...
 
Well, somebody can't read....go to her post, number 133, then your response, number 135. read very, very carefully....
she did NOT say the second, did say the first....
If you have proof, tell me the post number...

Post 140, which I quoted to you earlier:

I think most Muslims support terrorism
 
Only after we have been attacked and then only after an **actual** declaration of war from Congress. I am tired of these "conflicts" that put our fellow Americans in harms way without a formal declaration. Furthermore, I would pull our troops from everywhere EXCEPT here.
 
I hear repeating things makes them true. (in your head)

Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story sport. The Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release proves my assertions but I don't think it made it to the cover of Pravda so I doubt that you've heard of it.
 
only if we are attacked or to pre-empt an attack against us
Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes
 

Sorry sir you quite simply don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about the Senate Phase 2 Report was pure partisan politics and was written before, the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," which proves my assertions beyond any reasonable doubt.

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, 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."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

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.

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun

Here's a link to the full report:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6
 
I hear he wanted Bush Sr. dead, and that was the reason Bush Jr. invaded Iraq....That is more believeable than Saddam wanting to attack the U. S.
Saddam had already had his butt kicked in the first Gulf war, he was all talk by the time the second war was being considered.

I don't care what sounds believable the Pentagon Review of DOCEX proves that Saddam was plotting against the U.S. with Jihadists (including AQ affiliates) right up until the fall of Baghdad.
 
Also, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch-hunts, the KKK killed more than all Muslim attacks.

That's complete ****ing bull****.

A) Muslims attacks annually kill more people than the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and the KKK did throughout their entire tenure.

B) The Crusades were a direct response to Islamic Imperialist Expansionism.

C) The Islamic Imperialists were responsible for the largest genocide in the history of the world until Hitler and Stalin which they perpetrated against the Hindu and Buddhists on the Indian Subcontinent.
 
And this thread has spiraled into discussing which religion has a more vile history. No religion I know of has a spotless record, and secular groups don't fare much better.
 
Post 140, which I quoted to you earlier: Originally Posted by chickie
I think most Muslims support terrorism

and that is not the same as saying most muslims ARE terrorists.....

Right after 9/11 the local school had to tell a muslim fathery that his kids repeat what they hear at home, and that celebrating 9/11 was not such a good idea....

Personally, I don't know how we can know the percentage of muslims support terrorism, but surely you cannot deny that in the last few decades, the majority of terrorists have been muslim.
 
Sorry sir you quite simply don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about the Senate Phase 2 Report was pure partisan politics and was written before, the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," which proves my assertions beyond any reasonable doubt.



Here's a link to the full report:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX:

Those documents have been available since 2003 and were considered by the committee when it prepared its report. 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.
 
The Spanish Inquisition got a bunch of people. You can say that not many deaths happened from their trials. But the trials were a witch hunt of sorts and shouldn't have happened in the first place. And there were a lot of trials. So sure, few could have yielded death sentences; but because there was so many that still means a significant number of people were put to death. And the Spanish Inquisition is not the only inquisition to be had. Additionally there great battles in Europe against varying sects of Christianity. And the tradition of protestant vs catholic is alive today (though maybe not quite as violent anymore) in places like Ireland. Christianity was used a lot for warfare, particularly between crowns in Europe. The main thing with Christianity is that eventually we divorced it from our governments and allowed religion to be free. And when we did, we saw that religion started to become far less violent. But you can't pretend like Christianity never did anything bad. State religions get abused.

Did I ever say that the Christian faith was never abused? Sure it was. However, there would have been wars between the crowned heads of Europe, with or without religion. Religion was often used as a cover for personal ambition and greed by the crowned heads of Europe. Of course, without Martin Luther and his heretical movement, there would have been no Catholic-Protestant conflicts, would there have been... :)
 
I hear he wanted Bush Sr. dead, and that was the reason Bush Jr. invaded Iraq....That is more believeable than Saddam wanting to attack the U. S.
Saddam had already had his butt kicked in the first Gulf war, he was all talk by the time the second war was being considered.

Who are Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.?
 
Did I ever say that the Christian faith was never abused? Sure it was. However, there would have been wars between the crowned heads of Europe, with or without religion. Religion was often used as a cover for personal ambition and greed by the crowned heads of Europe. Of course, without Martin Luther and his heretical movement, there would have been no Catholic-Protestant conflicts, would there have been... :)

And there will be wars between us and the Middle Eastern people, with or without religion, as long as we believe we're entitled to exploit them.
 
Who are Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.?

are you kidding?
Sr. is George Herbert Walker Bush, Jr. is his son, George W. Bush. I realize they aren't really sr. and jr., but the connection should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer....:roll:
 
Well, there have been some interesting responses, but somehow this discussion has degraded to an argument about which religion killed the most people.


IMO, no religion ever killed a single person - rather, people who believed their religion allowed/told/etc. them to kill people - killed people.


Religion is often simply a method of control/direction, or at least it can be used as such, by those with the will to do so.


It is when a person or groups of persons used a religion to control/direct people, that other people died.


A religion itself is incapable of killing anyone.


-------


But back on topic.


I, personally, think that the US should only go to war (or any conflict, even if it’s not called “war”) if it is necessary.


Necessary, of course, must be defined for that statement to have any real meaning.


I don’t know all the possible reasons, but it would seem that, if the priority goal of the military is to protect the country, then any even oblique threat could be used as an excuse.


What threats merit direct military action, of course, is a judgment call on the part of the administrating powers at the time.


I can only hope they make the right choices.
 
are you kidding?
Sr. is George Herbert Walker Bush, Jr. is his son, George W. Bush. I realize they aren't really sr. and jr., but the connection should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer....:roll:

Right, they are NOT sr. and jr.... thank you for admitting your error....
 
Back
Top Bottom