| Author |
Message |
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:43 am |
|
| Kyre wrote: | So let's say the U.S. does go on a world tour of destruction. What then? I mean, they'll lose around a thousand troops in every country, because it'll be similar conditions to Iraq (IMO).
And when they come out of it with thousand and thousands of troops dead, and civilian casualties breaking the 6 figure mark, what do you think will happen? To tell you the truth, I don't even want to know. It doesn't even bear thinking about. |
So, was WW2 worth the sacrifice? We got into 6 figures there. What about the civil war? What about the Revolutionary War.
We know the sacrifices.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:47 am |
|
| Kyre wrote: | So let's say the U.S. does go on a world tour of destruction. What then? I mean, they'll lose around a thousand troops in every country, because it'll be similar conditions to Iraq (IMO).
And when they come out of it with thousand and thousands of troops dead, and civilian casualties breaking the 6 figure mark, what do you think will happen? To tell you the truth, I don't even want to know. It doesn't even bear thinking about. |
Ever the optimist. After re-reading this topic, I don't see anyone saying anything like what you said. They want to deal with terrorism. In case you are unaware, there are ways to do that w/out sending in ground troops like in Iraq and Afghanistan. It still involves the military, and will still have casualties, but that's better than a six year old boarding a bus one day in Israel, and never coming home again, now isn't it?
From your post, if I decide to skew it, as you did this entire topic, it's ok for the terrorists to do as they please, because they aren't capable of open warfare, and the casualties will be less. Right.
The plan is to get everyone to do something about terrorism. Not for the US to go on a massive campaign. But there's the glaring difference between the US and terrorists. They are willing to die to kill you. We are willing to die to protect you.
http://www.startrekvoyager.com/viewtopic.php?t=18130
Oh look. Only a handful of innocent children/adults killed. INNOCENT being the operative word here.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:47 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Well, RM, here's my logic on the pull out.
I don't beleive that the resistence we're seeing in Iraq is the same threat we've seen elsewhere. They aren't Al-Qaeda linked, and they aren't linked with many of the other groups we originally set after, for instance, when we started this war, we didn't care about Al-Sadr's brigade at all, he only formed AFTER we took the more organized terrorists out. These are independant "gangs" which have formed becuase of the fact that they want the U.S. out of their country, that why we need to at least decrease troop strength there, allowing Iraq to figure ITESELF out, and to see if the local insurgencies stop.
Given, it's not QUITE the same threat, but many of them ARE Al-Qaeda linked. Either way, Sadr's group, even though it rose to power in his region AFTER Saddam, is a terrorist group, and if he were to gain control, other terrorists would be supported.
Don't get me wrong. I know there are some insurgents from Al-Qaeda who've come in to kill people, but they would be impossible to kill unless we get them at their source.
Yeah, but Iraq is a major front on the War on Terror.
I don't think it's liberal to want to go after the source, rather than letting them come to us. Yes, the idea of a pullout is generally liberal, but in my viewpoint, a pullout would allow us to be more proactive against the threat overall. I've rationalized a pullout with conservative beleifs.
I NEVER said that it was Liberal to GO AFTER THE SOURCE. I WANT us to go after the source! I just said that what you said at that ONE point.
| Quote: | | These insurgents will stop if we move out of Iraq, and Iraq will rebuilt prosporously, and happily, and gain trust on the U.S. |
As for our GREAT President, he's done a fantastic job on almost everything he's done for our country. Yes, he was the FIRST to act, and yes, he's acted honorably, and correctly. But, honestly, I think he's been too long in Iraq, when he could be in Iran or elsewhere. |
No, we haven't been there too long, but I agree that soon we should go into Iran.
| Kyre wrote: | So let's say the U.S. does go on a world tour of destruction. What then? I mean, they'll lose around a thousand troops in every country, because it'll be similar conditions to Iraq (IMO).
WORLD TOUR OF DESTRUCTION! What the heck is that? We have NOT gone on ANYTHING of the sort, and DEFENDING our country against a horrific threat like Iran and taking the fight to the terrorists is NOT a "world tour of destruction"! Defense is now for DESTRUCTION?
And when they come out of it with thousand and thousands of troops dead, and civilian casualties breaking the 6 figure mark, what do you think will happen? To tell you the truth, I don't even want to know. It doesn't even bear thinking about. |
So, you don't want the US to defend itself then?
[quote="Captain Dappet"][quote="Republican_Man"] | Captain Dappet wrote: | Fine, I apologize. I spoke out of turn, and I apologize.
And I wasn't referring to Fidel as "beloved President", I was referring to Bush. 
Anyhow, this is pretty off-topic, so let's drop the subject. |
Your point:
| Quote: | Perhaps you didnt hear me right? I said let's drop the subject, so let's just do that, alright?
Good. |
Perhpas you haven't been paying attention. I DID drop the subject!
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | So let's say the U.S. does go on a world tour of destruction. What then? I mean, they'll lose around a thousand troops in every country, because it'll be similar conditions to Iraq (IMO).
And when they come out of it with thousand and thousands of troops dead, and civilian casualties breaking the 6 figure mark, what do you think will happen? To tell you the truth, I don't even want to know. It doesn't even bear thinking about. |
So, was WW2 worth the sacrifice? We got into 6 figures there. What about the civil war? What about the Revolutionary War.
We know the sacrifices. |
EXACTLY.
| Theresa wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | So let's say the U.S. does go on a world tour of destruction. What then? I mean, they'll lose around a thousand troops in every country, because it'll be similar conditions to Iraq (IMO).
And when they come out of it with thousand and thousands of troops dead, and civilian casualties breaking the 6 figure mark, what do you think will happen? To tell you the truth, I don't even want to know. It doesn't even bear thinking about. |
Ever the optimist. After re-reading this topic, I don't see anyone saying anything like what you said. They want to deal with terrorism. In case you are unaware, there are ways to do that w/out sending in ground troops like in Iraq and Afghanistan. It still involves the military, and will still have casualties, but that's better than a six year old boarding a bus one day in Israel, and never coming home again, now isn't it?
From your post, if I decide to skew it, as you did this entire topic, it's ok for the terrorists to do as they please, because they aren't capable of open warfare, and the casualties will be less. Right.
The plan is to get everyone to do something about terrorism. Not for the US to go on a massive campaign. But there's the glaring difference between the US and terrorists. They are willing to die to kill you. We are willing to die to protect you.
http://www.startrekvoyager.com/viewtopic.php?t=18130
Oh look. Only a handful of innocent children/adults killed. INNOCENT being the operative word here. |
GREAT POINTS!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kylon
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 292
Location: In a distant galaxy far far away...
|
| Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:01 pm |
|
I think we should go into a bunch of foreign countries, makeup some reasons to attack them, and advance!!!
If their not democracies, then they don't matter. THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED.
Even if this idea sounds kinda stupid(because that would mean probably invading at least 2/5ths of the world) it must be done for the reasons we made up earlier! Besides, it's a moral imperative to destroy any country that is NOT a democracy and replace it with a friendly puppet operated regime which at least pretends to be run like a democracy!
Eventually all countries will get nuclear weapons. Therefore all countries which we distrust, or don't understand, should invaded.
Al Queda are terrorist, not a country. I agree with the war in Afghanistan, I'll even agree with the war in Iraq(not it's methods though), but I can't agree with launching a third world war without hardly any justification!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:04 pm |
|
| Kylon wrote: | I think we should go into a bunch of foreign countries, makeup some reasons to attack them, and advance!!!
If their not democracies, then they don't matter. THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED.
We have NEVER said that we want to go to war for that! That's crap!
Even if this idea sounds kinda stupid(because that would mean probably invading at least 2/5ths of the world) it must be done for the reasons we made up earlier! Besides, it's a moral imperative to destroy any country that is NOT a democracy and replace it with a friendly puppet operated regime which at least pretends to be run like a democracy!
My gosh! What the heck is this that you're saying---We go to war for DEFENSIVE PURPOSES!
Eventually all countries will get nuclear weapons. Therefore all countries which we distrust, or don't understand, should invaded.
That's not right. Of course many countries will get nuclear weapons, but that does NOT mean that they necessary pose a grave and immidiate threat now. We go to war to defend our country when needed--ESPECIALLY IN THIS WAR ON TERROR!
Al Queda are terrorist, not a country. I agree with the war in Afghanistan, I'll even agree with the war in Iraq(not it's methods though), but I can't agree with launching a third world war without hardly any justification! |
Alright, fine. I say that this is the Third World War already. Look at how involved the whole world has become--it's a WORLD WAR and Al Quada doesn't have to be a country for it to be our enemy like a country, and we HAVE to go into countries that support these menaces.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:41 pm |
|
| Kylon wrote: | I think we should go into a bunch of foreign countries, makeup some reasons to attack them, and advance!!!
If their not democracies, then they don't matter. THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED.
Even if this idea sounds kinda stupid(because that would mean probably invading at least 2/5ths of the world) it must be done for the reasons we made up earlier! Besides, it's a moral imperative to destroy any country that is NOT a democracy and replace it with a friendly puppet operated regime which at least pretends to be run like a democracy!
Eventually all countries will get nuclear weapons. Therefore all countries which we distrust, or don't understand, should invaded.
Al Queda are terrorist, not a country. I agree with the war in Afghanistan, I'll even agree with the war in Iraq(not it's methods though), but I can't agree with launching a third world war without hardly any justification! |
Are you hearing the same speeches and reading the same documents as the rest of us, or do you go off like this often?
WAR ON TERRORISM - Not war on Iran, North Korea, etc... If that's what you got from that whole "Axis of Evil" speech, perhaps it'd behoove you to read it this time. The entire thing. While Bush said some stupid things, every point he made was valid. Something needs to be done about terrorism, and apparently Bush and Blair are the only ones with balls enough to do anything. Go them. I for one am glad to have a president who would rather do what was right, than what would make him popular.
Unstable governments should not have WMD's. Especially unstable countries that murder their people for kicks.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
