Monday, December 14, 2009

Afghanistan Part II

The second part to my former Afghanistan post- which is below.

I am critiquing President Obama's recent strategy/policy speech for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. "

Yes and only we can do that. Because we are the all-important American people. The fact that we did this to two countries already (well, maybe not the second one...not all the way) is of no import. The only thing that matters right now is that....

Terrorists are evil. They want to kill us. Allah is evil. Muslims are evil. Terrorists are evil. Kill them!!!

"We will insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."

I have an idea. When you hear about some high-level al-Qaeda operative somewhere...send an assassin! A good assassin- you know, like one from a movie or something. It would be cheaper, and vastly more effective than our current regimen of invade - occupy - switch countries.

"The government's ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security."

I love how he makes it sound like we're going to be helping the Pakistani people. They don't want our help. They've been feeding us low-lifes from the Taliban for years- many of whom have absolutely no knowledge of anything.

And now we're going to invade them. Despite his high-flown words, that is basically what we're doing. We're going to send in troops. And occupy them.

"It's important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after Al Qaida. .... And that's why we must focus on military assistance on the tools, training, and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists."

Uh-huh. Military assistance, my eye. We'll be giving military assistance as in oh, a bunch of troops occupying them.

"And after years of mixed results, we will not and cannot provide a blank check."

Really? I mean, that's worked so well for us in the past. You know, what with the Afghan-Soviet war (where we channeled funds to the Mujahideen...through Pakistan), or 'Nam. Or Korea. Or pretty much any other country where we went in to help and ended up making a bigger mess than we started with.

The fact is President Obama, that you can't provide a check at all. Maybe you haven't noticed, but your country is like...bankrupt. There is no money. There is no more money to pursue your dreams of imperialism, begun by your predecessor. Sorry. But there is no way we can pursue this or any other war!

"To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. "

What mistakes of the past would that be?

Because I seem to remember...oh let's see, a failed mission in Vietnam. Or a blood bath in Korea. Or the Afghan-Soviet debacle that ended in (recently) disastrous outcomes for us. Or a war in Iraq/Kuwait that was waayyy out of our proper role.

So maybe this time, just this once, we could pursue a policy of non-interventionism. After all, if we don't mess with them, I doubt they'll feel inclined to mess with us.

"Now a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaida offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something from the time."

Oh yeah. We see how beautifully an American invasion turned out for the Iraqis. And the Afghans. I mean, they're dancing in the streets, they're so....wait.

Oops. Was that our bomb?

"So, today, I'm calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co- sponsored by Maria Cantwell and Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. "

No. No. That is not the way it's done. Of course, considering the precedent that has been set by previous presidents, it's no wonder he's a bit confused.

When you invade a country, you have to declare war on them. Not just send in soldiers and give them money. That is way unconstitutional.

"As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong inspector general at both State Department and USAID and include robust funding for special inspector generals for Afghan reconstruction."

Unfortunately, your budget is already bankrupt. Sorry.

"I remind everybody the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001 for doing nothing than going about their daily lives. Al Qaida and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries."

Apparently, President Obama, just like his predecessor, sees no problem with invading an entire sovereign country to get at a couple hundred terrorists. And going over there and attacking them simply confirms what the terrorists think of us.

In Osama bin Laden's announcement of the inauguration of the World Islamic Front, he proclaimed their purpose in attacking the US and her people:

"The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food ... No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone: ...
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples ... If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. ...
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

Considering this (which was written during the Gulf War), its easy to see that we're merely repeating past mistakes. And that Osama bin Laden's points, at least in his mind and the minds of his followers, are still quite valid. We are confirming his position and his beliefs about us.

And I am quite sure that others will see that he still has a point. And though they may not join his organization to perpetrate violence, they will still agree with him, and bin Laden wins a PR victory.

Well, I guess that's the end. The rest of it is just kumbaya, everybody loves everybody else.... ^.^

Here's a link to the transcript, if you'd like to read.

27 comments:

Teresa said...

If the United States had not responded, denounced, and used force after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks occurred that would have signaled to the terrorists that what they did was alright. That was an act of war. Not responding would have signaled to them that the United States was weak and not committed to defending herself.

I have noticed that the U.S. is blamed if we don't intervene, but when we do other countries blame us too.

Our troops may be able to help them build up their infrastructure projects. But, I do think that most of the funding should be up to the Pakistanis. Maybe, at first give them money to help them started, but then give incentives to comapnies to go over there and teach them skills, and hire them.

I love your idea of sending an assassin to kill the terrorists!

But, sending assassins to kill terrorists can not negate the need for defending a nation when attacked, like we were on Sept.11.

I still think it is of extreme importance that our troops not allow 24-45 nuclear warheads located in Pakistan get in the hands of the terrorists. But, if we could guarantee with a high degree of certainty that they were in a safe location, or relocated them ( don't know if that is possible) and that there was no way the terrorists would get their hands on the warheads, then after that maybe we should leave Pakistan.

Liberty said...

But going in there confirmed bin Laden's idea of us. That is also dangerous.

I think the best way to go is a noninterventionist policy. Let's face it- if we hadn't intervened in the Afghan-Soviet war, we would not be facing this situation today. Bin Laden would be less powerful because he would not have access to American weapons he got ahold of after the aforementioned conflict.

So you think that when we're attacked by a terrorist, we should go and invade sovereign countries?

Oh, I like it. Who's next? Britain?! They have a huge terrorist population!

Oh my goodness, Pakistan has nukes. You know what. So do we. And we're the only people who have ever used them. How's that for a track record?

Excuse my sarcasm- but I find it hard to get mad at people who have nukes. Because we have nukes. And we've used them. So we really have no room to talk.

Teresa said...

This is what I was told by my Lib professor: Bin Laden attacked us to get us out of Middle Eastern affairs. But, we had not been there since 1991/1992. So, we did not have any forces in the Middle East for about 9 years before we were attacked on 9/11, so that doesn't make any sense. Bin Laden could have left us alone and we would have stayed out of the Middle East.


The only thing I will say about the Afghan-Soviet War is hindsight is 20/20. Who would know what the future would hold? And, that Bin Laden would turn on us & become our enemy?

Afghanistan was run by terrorists/Jihadists that were hiding Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda who was/is our enemy. If they had given him up there would have been no need to send troops into Iraq.

Excuse me... Did Britain invade us on Sept. 11? NO There is a differene between a country having terrorists and a country harboring terrorists who planned an act of war that killed almost 3000 lives.

Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Agreement and are not willing to abide by the no-use policy which means Pakistan does not agree to having to be attcked first to retaliate with the use of nukes.

The U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor and that is why the U.S. dropped the nukes. Our President did that to save our American troops from being slaughtered. That was another act of war that we fought back against. Both wars were fored upon the U.S.

The U.S. has signed the non-proliferation treaty and agreed to non use policy until we are attacked.

To me Bush used restraint since he didn't fall into the temptation to use the nukes after 9/11. That would have really killed waaaaaaaaay more Afghanis and Iraqis and would have obliterated there country.

Liberty said...

Once we go into a country to invade....we stay. We were still in the Middle

East for those nine years. Very much so. How else could the USS Cole have

been blown up?

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But you can also look ahead and think- wait. This has

happened to us before. Shouldn't we exercise caution? Or, maybe we could

just shut up, and not mess in things that are none of our concern. Didn't your

mother teach you to mind your own business?


"Afghanistan was run by terrorists/Jihadists that were hiding Bin

Laden and Al-Qaeda who was/is our enemy. If they had given him up there

would have been no need to send troops into Iraq."

Afghanistan was run by terrorists....so we invaded....Iraq. Um, OK. That

makes total sense. Or perhaps that was a typo. I surely hope so, because that sounds quite strange.

"Did Britain invade us on Sept. 11? NO There is a differene between a country

having terrorists and a country harboring terrorists who planned an act of war

that killed almost 3000 lives. "

But what about this 'war on terror'? Aren't we supposed to "Fight terror

wherever we find it"?! So, we find terror in London. LET"S GO ATTACK

LONDON!!!

You see where this craziness can lead?

You keep going back to those 3000 lives. But...what about the hundreds of

thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians WE have killed? I think we have

succesfully wreaked our revenge now. Their losses far, far outweigh ours, using any system of measurement.

You're missing my point about the nukes. Our track record with nukes is bad. Worse than any other nation, in fact. It has nothing to do with treaties. We are the only people who have ever used nukes. Period.

I understand why we used the nukes. But no, we dropped the nukes at the END of WWII- not at the beginning. And I do think it was a semi-necessary move. If we had not ended the war, the Japanese would have fought until there were none of them left. But we still used them, and that is the point.

But according to you, we have been attacked. So we could use nukes. And yes, Bush did use restraint. But that does not change the facts- that we attacked their country for no reason other than a few hundred terrorists were hiding in their borders, and that we have a perverted, arrogant opinion of ourselves. We have ruined their infrastructure, obliterated their governments, killed their people...and now we're going into another country to do it again!

I fail to see how you can justify this as anything less than an outrage. We have no right to attack sovereign countries, no matter their perceived slights. We did not find bin Laden in Afghanistan, and I am quite confident we will not find him in Pakistan. His nature is to hide and keep one step ahead of us. And we are falling into his trap, bringing ever more people to his cause by our actions.

JT Norlander said...

Again, here's the thing:

I didn't read the entire post, just the first half. But what I wanted to say is that when you talked about going into Vietnam such, and making a bigger mess,

that all happened because mainly a bunch of Liberal politicans were micro-managing the war, like the Obama administration is doing now!

Korea was a war we fought to standstill because when we could've won, china entered and we didn't just go and nuke them to the Stone Age. That was our first mistake there, then the micro-managing began.

Vietnam was the politicians fault, not the soldiers. the People also were at fault, because they decided "oh goodness! I didn't realize war involved KILLING PEOPLE! but now that I see that on my TV, I think I'll protest this!"

That's Bullcrap. War comes at a cost, both in civilian and military lives.
I hate killing, I hate bloodshed, but sometimes what is necessary is messy.
That's life. Get used to it.

Teresa said...

The United States was not physically occupying any country within the Middle East.

The USS Cole was only refueling in Yemen when the terrorists blew it up. The USS Cole went into that region to help enforce The International Oil Embargo because of the turmoil within the area. United States vessels have the right to sail in International waters.

Waiting will only give the terrorists a chance to revive, reload and comeback with even more of a vengeance.

Shutting up and not bothering terrorists does not stop terrorists and their way of life. They believe in a perverted type of Islam that condones violence. It doesn't say don't attack westerners because they haven't attacked us.

You honestly think terrorists are about peace and compromise?

That is ludicrous!

Terrorists are about destroying the West no matter what it takes.

LONDON and terrorists within the UK did not attack us. London has not harbored Jihadists that planned an act of war. There are CIA agents and others who keep an eye out in places that are not sponsors of terrorism. Iraq and Afghanistan were state sponsors of terrorism, and Great Britain is not.

You are waaaaaay ..... off base in your thinking that the U.S. has killed hundreds of thousands of civilans. You are exaggerating in a major way. The actual civilian count killed is unknown because after terrorists were killed others would make them look like civilians by removing their guns and other items. Plus, you are blaming the U.S. for killing civilians when the blame really lies with the terrorists. If there were no terrorists in the world than we wouldn't need to go to war to defend ourselves. But, the pacifists dream is a pipedream. That is why your statement relating London to a terrorist sympathizing country is way off base, and way out of proportion. You are clumping everything together and that is wrong.

"mother teach you to mind your own business?" That was uncalled for but since you went that route I can too.

Did your mother teach you about self-defense and just doing nothing and letting terrorists takeover the world while you sit back on your pacifist butt and hope that they won't kill us. Did she teach you to give up when the going gets tough. Or are you a weakling? It sure seems like it.

I am a a person of great perseverance and won't let the terrorists kill us. I am for defense of our nation instead of just sitting back and being naive in thinking that somehow the terrorists are going to change. That is unrealistic and the essence of naivety to think that terrorists are going to change just because we leave them alone. Terrorists are different than Fundamentalist Muslims.

Yes, that was a typo. I meant Afganistan.

Countries are not considered sovereign when terrorists control them. Saddam should have been removed from power by the United Nations years ago for killing Iraqis. So, he deserved what he got since he would not abide by any of their 18 sanctions.

So, you don't think 9/11 was an act of war? You don't think that the terrorists attacked us before we sent troops in Afganistan and Iraq? You don't think we were attacked? Do you have to see the terrorists for yourself to actually believe that terrorists attacked us?

Liberty said...

JT- Please don't bring partisan mudslinging into this. My point was not that the liberals or anyone else was micromanaging.

My point was that we, as a nation, went in and attacked, with no provocation, a sovereign country, moved in, and camped out. We had no business interfering in the conflict between North and South Korea.

The same with Vietnam. We went in for no reason, in an undeclared conflict, and spent thousands of lives in a foolish, pointless endeavour. People were right to protest it. It was a pointless war, not to mention unconstitutional!

I agree that the politicians caused it. Totally. I do not blame our soldiers for either those conflicts or our current problems. Not at all. I blame the politicians. But I blame them. Patriotism, devotion to my country, does not include blindly submitting to an unjust, unconstitutional act by my government.

And that, for me, is one of the biggest things- these wars are unconstitutional. They were not declared. We never announced our purpose formally to the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, and neither will we do it to Pakistan or Iran. Congress will not declare war. They will merely approve the President's transfer of troops. Do you think that's OK? Should we overlook the subversion of our founding documents, of the honor and decency our Founders held so dear?

So your solution for everything is to go and nuke people who, in the long run, we do inhabit the same globe with? How does that solve anything? How long do you think we would survive without China's exports or the Middle East's oil? How long do you think we'd last without Japanese investment?

About a fraction of a New York minute. Within days, our entire economy would come to standstill. Cars would be inoperable, our entire country would go into a state of shock.

We cannot just go around nuking people because we disagree with them. And the danger with nuking is that, in the end, you're not nuking just the government or the military- in fact, with conventional bombs, you're not just bombing the government or the military.

You're bombing the people. Civilians die. I agree that that happens in war, but when it is needlessly done, when we had no reason to do it- how can you justify that? How do you think of that so callously? How can you think that our bombing young children, women, and old men is any way justified merely as the 'fortunes of war'?

Following that logic, aren't the 3000 deaths that were inflicted on us merely the 'fortunes of war'?

And if not- then why? How does this logic work- that their casualties are somehow less important than ours? That their women, their children, mean less than ours? That their country, their culture, their way of life, is less important than ours? How can you justify that to yourself?

Teresa said...

You said,
"Following that logic, aren't the 3000 deaths that were inflicted on us merely the 'fortunes of war'?"

Okay, so now you are rooting for the terrorists. Sounds like you are against our military.


You give the Muslim terrorists all the dang excuses in the world but won't cut the troops and the country that you live in any slack when we are attacked. I think you might enjoy the "paece" of the Jihadists that you give every benefit even though they killed 3000 Americans and many more around the world. You would take the terrorists side over the Americans. That's disgraceful. I don't think you can go any lower in your thought processes than that. Gee, do we have an up and coming trainee?

Liberty said...

Teresa- But what about the Gulf war? 1990s. Not 2000s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union (after the Soviet-Afghan war), we still had a military presence in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and Egypt. All Muslim lands. But we weren't there.

The Cole was still there, regardless of what it was doing. And obviously- since al Qaeda was able to plan the attack in some detail- the Cole had been there for quite some time. (I need to research that attack in more detail however.)

I do not think terrorists are for peace. But I don't think attacking a sovereign country is the way to go about fighting them. Why don't we pay attention to the growing terrorist population here?

And if we are going to keep on with this insane, ludicrous 'war on terror', then why don't we attack Saudi Arabia. They have training camps. Or the Sudan- a known area of terrorist activities. Or Somalia- where there are definitely terrorists. Or Yemen, where tons of terrorists come from? Or Kenya, where Muslim radicalism is quite prevalent? Or how about any other country in the Middle East? Where in the world will this end?!

Will we stop when we've taken over the Middle East? Or where will we go next- Asia? Europe? Or HERE? When we get into this cycle of madness, where does it end? Where do we draw the line and say- "Enough is enough"?

But London is really a nonissue at the moment, I'll admit. The real problem is...here! I mean those evil 9/11 hijackers had been here for YEARS!!! We trained them to fly planes!! We gave them the materials they needed! And the CIA? The FBI? Uh....nothing. The terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

If we declare war on anyone, it should be on ourselves, letting this happen to us.

Am I REALLY waaaaaay off base? Are you sure? Did you even google to find out?

Because I did. And I found this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
That was in 2006. 3 years ago. 655,000 deaths. Civilian deaths.

Let's say that only 10 percent of those were civilians. That's still 65,000. But I doubt that only that much were civilians. Let's give a more conservative number- let's say...60% were civilians, which would mean 40% were terrorists. That is still 393,000 civilians we have killed.

But let's do a more realistic number. Considering the terrorist population compared to the civilian population, let's say 5% of the deaths were terrorists. That means we killed 622,250 civilians. And that was in 2006. We've had three more years to wreak death and carnage.

Despite the belief you seem to have, there are not terrorists behind every bush. The amount of men who come to bin Laden's training camps are quite low compared to the civilian populations- and the hype.

I will ask you the same question I asked JT- how can you justify that as the simple fortunes of war?

Stop and think about it for a minute.

Children. Little boys. Little girls. Your siblings. Killed. Your mother. Your elderly grandfather. Killed.

Because every single one of those people who died was someone's child. Someone's sister. Someone's brother. Someone's neice. Someone's nephew. Someone's mother. Someone's father.

Think about that for a minute. Let it sink in, nice and good.

Now tell me that that is OK. That we were justified. That the cost is acceptable. That killing civilians is OK, if it is in the pursuit of something we want.

Because is it? In the long run, is it?

Liberty said...

Yes, my mother did teach me about self defense. In fact, I'm learning karate! And I have a strong desire to learn how to shoot! I am far from a pacifist.

I merely think that the way we are going about this is WRONG. Our reaction was way overblown. Our actions since 9/11 have been over the top, and just wrong. I have explained this to you.

You still are not listening to me. I have explained what I think. I have explained why I think it. I have explained that our actions merely dig a bigger hole under our feet.

Countries aren't considered sovereign when terrorists run them?

Since when?

And Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist. He was a dictator. He ran a country, a government. The Taliban is the same way. When they gained control of Afghanistan, they ceased to be a terrorist organization, and became a governmental entity.

It was only when we went in there and messed with them that they became a terrorist organization again.

9/11 was an act of terror instigated by a single individual and his underground jihadist organization.

You still have a mistaken idea of what a terrorist/terrorist organization is. It is not an entity you can just go attack. It has no base, no center of operations. You cannot attack it with conventional warfare. It will not work. It has never worked, it never will, and it will cease to not work until we either have to quit because we're totally, completely bankrupt, or we or they all die.

To your second comment-

You did not even answer my question.

Are our losses any more important than theirs? If so, why?

Believe me, I am not a terrorist. I am not a jihadist. I love America, I love the freedom I enjoy. And I think the terrorists did an evil, heinous thing on 9/11. But I think we also did a heinous thing in killing far more of their civilians, enough to far outweigh those of ours that died. How can you justify that?

I would cut them some slack- if these wars were justified. But they are not. They are useless waste of lives, on both sides. Warfare against these organizations is useless, as has been proved. We have been fighting them for eight years, and what have we gained? Name me something. What have we gained?

Teresa said...

Liberty,

Your statements show NO indication that you LOVE America in any way. You have shown to have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what it takes to defend our nation. You are putting much more stock in civilian lives in what was one of our enemy nations that may or may not be innocent than our own men and women, and both American innocent civilians and soldiers fighting for our freedom.. You need to start caring about our brave men and women in the battlefield instead of the terrorists lives. Usually people don't think that their enemies' lives are more important but you do which is incomprehensible. Karate is only thinking in the realm of self-defense of yourself. Try thinking beyond yourself and the huge consequences we would encounter as a nation if we did not defend ourselves and fight overseas. STOP BEING A PEACENICK LIVING IN A DREAMWORLD and TRYING TO ENFORCE A UTOPIAN SOCIETY INSTEAD OF FACING REALITY.

YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR NAME TO TYRANNY OR ANTI-LIBERTY, or ANTI-FREEDOM. Because you show no desire to promote and keep either our liberty or freedom.

Liberty said...

I am not going to stoop to an useless ad hominem attack war with you. It is a waste of both our time. If you cannot respond to the facts and opinions I expressed in any other way than to call me unamerican, then I suggest you leave my blog. You have no place here.

However, if you are willing to continue this debate in a calm, rational manner, without bringing attacks upon my person into it, then stay. I have enjoyed debating with you, and I enjoy debate in general. I like having opposing viewpoints here.

Teresa said...

I have been debating in a calm and rational manner. You are the one that is not rational. You are a peacenick who wants to combat peace by simply letting the terrorists do what the heck they want which is killing Americans. You seem to blame Americans instead of the real enemy. So, no use continuing debating with someone who has no understanding of reality and who is not willing to allow our soldiers to fight to keep both our freedom and liberty. Sitting back and waiting like you want us to do will only bring more grief and pain to our country and its citizens. By doing nothing as you suggest you are just asking for another 9/11 attack to happen.

Liberty said...

I don't think that calling me names and yelling at me comprises calm, rational debate.

I am not against our troops. I honor their sacrifices, and their willingness to give all on the altar of imperialism that our politicians have erected. I do not blame them for this mess.

But I do blame our politicians, and their skewed ideas of what our priorities are. While our economy is collapsing, our culture nosediving, our educational system in a state of shock, they took us into two unconstitutional wars, and they seem dead-set on dragging us into two more.

I do not understand how opposing that makes me unamerican.

Grief and pain. What about the grief and pain we've inflicted on the Iraqis? And the Afghans? And the grief and pain we will inflict upon the Pakistanis and the Iranians? Does their suffering, do their sacrifices, mean less than ours?

I refuse to sit placidly by while unjust wars are fought. I refuse to look the other way while we ruin two sovereign countries in pursuit of an ideology we will never get rid of in such a way.

If you wish to, that is your prerogative. But I will not join you. As an American, I cannot sit by and watch our soldiers being killed in a fruitless war. I cannot sit by and watch the politicians take advantage of them. I will not.

JT Norlander said...

3000 deaths on 9/11 was not fortunes of war. It was an ACT OF WAR, specifically targeting civilians.

There is a MAJOR difference between collateral damage in combat and specifically targeting civilians. Don't pander to me with that bull.

And yes, we should have nuked. China. We should nuke North Korea, Iran, and the other nations that support terrorism, try to uproot and destroy our nation and our allies, and otherwise show themselves to be hostile.

I'm not callous. I'm realistic. Do I hate the thought of killing innocents like that, by nuking them? Yes, I do.

But a line must be drawn in the sand, and if they cross it, we destroy them completely and utterly.

and believe it or not, I didn't say nuke Japan. Japan has been very friendly since we did it the first two times. And we would survive without Chinese products. Half of them are crap anyways. I think a little sacrifice in this country would be a great thing. As for oil? We drill in Alaska, keep on buying from the Saudis and Iraqis who are the ones already selling to us, and that eliminates Iran.

Two more things: South Korea and South Vietnam asked us to help them. So don't give me that crap about them not wanting us there. They asked for help.

And "partisan mudslinging"? Are you serious?
Mudslinging is when you tell lies and half-truths to obscure the real issue.

What I said is FACT. and Non-Partisan. If it had been the republicans or conservatives, I would have said so. But aside from a few rogue exceptions, conservatives have more brains than liberals. That too is FACT.

Sorry, I lied. One more thing.

Learning to shoot and taking Karate doesn't mean you believe in self-defense of a nation. That's personal self-defense. And what you have been suggesting throughout these comments is seditious to the security of the United States.

JT

Teresa said...

Liberty,
You might want to actually think about what your saying and your actual words and whether you and your words are in defense of our country or whether they actually promote the defense of nations who advocate their terroristic policies and have been known to harbor terrorists?

I called you out on what you are in actuality. You are not for the libery and freedom of the United States. You are not for the United States defending herself. You only promote the defense of nations who have threatened our very existence.

The 3000 deaths was not fortunes of war. The terrorists targeted innocent civilians. The United States and its soldiers do not specifically target innocent soldiers. They are specifically targeting the terrorists and unfortunately the civilans who are killed due to that is horrible, but that is due to the fortunes of war.

Liberty said...

JT- 9/11 was not an act of war. It was a terrorist attack instigated by one individual and his underground organization. You cannot combat that with conventional warfare. I have tried to explain this. Several times.

Just nuking people does nothing to solve our problems. It merely confirms people like bin Laden in their opinion that we are imperialist, arrogant, militants who like nothing better than big explosions and war. That does nothing to advance our cause anywhere in the world.

And no, I don't think we could survive without China's exports. Do you know how much China makes? The computer you're using was made in China. Your cellphone. China. Much of your food. China. Your furniture. China. Your iPod/gaming stuff if any. China. Your clothing. China.

It would take us years to adapt to the loss of China's exports. Years.

What about their lines in the sand? What if they nuke US? But of course, that would just be evil and horrible! They can't do that!!! That would be...cruel, unfeeling!! All those innocent people!!

But...because they're other people...it's OK for us to kill them all.

We did nuke Japan however, and that is what I was referring to. ;)

Just because they asked us to help doesn't mean we had to. We had ourselves out there, a known history of intervening in foreign conflicts. Korea and Vietnam knew we would come running. And we did. That does not make it right.

The one thing both you and Teresa are ignoring is the fact that these wars- all of them since WWII- have been undeclared, and hence unconstitutional.

I define 'mudslinging' as when you try to obscure an issue by automatically blaming it on the other party. This is not a partisan issue. There is no difference between the Republican or Democrat parties, so it is a nonissue.

Seditious to our security? Really?

By daring to question the established position that we are over there in a righteous cause, I am being treasonous? I don't see how those things follow. Questioning our leaders and their decisions was a good thing, I thought. I don't see how that is treasonous.

The fact of the matter is that Bush used the upswell of public opinion right after 9/11 to pass the PATRIOT act, throw together the DHS, and start two undeclared, unconstitutional, unjust, costly wars.

We do not have the money or the Constitutional authority to stay there. Period. Furthermore, our staying there is merely a waste of our time and money. Attacking a sovereign country to find a few hundred militants does not work, as the eight years of war we've been there aptly show.

Teresa- I stand up for my country. We were hurt on 9/11. I am sorry for the loss many had to suffer through.

But I cannot condone the unconstitutional, preemptive actions of our politicians. I cannot, and I will not. My principles will not allow me to do so.

The countries did nothing to us. Afghanistan was minding its own business. Iraq was minding its own business. We went and attacked them, trying to find ONE MAN amongst thousands, and killed hundreds of thousands of them in the process. We have ravaged their countries for nothing more than our own perverted ideas of our own importance.

Do we really seriously think that if we cause enough mayhem, bin Laden will walk up to our doorstep and turn himself in?

No. And our being there and taking the actions we have merely adds more fuel to his fire. He gets more recruits, more money, and more people are willing to harbor him. Before we went in, he was already practically a celebrity in Pakistan! Now think what will happen when he becomes even more a martyr for Allah!!

I do not see how this follows. You say the terrorists started a war on 9/11. Then...those 3,000 were merely casualties of war, an unfortunate circumstance. How are the two different?

Teresa said...

Libery,
Your thinking 9/11 was not an act of war is so absurd.

What would you define as an act of war on America since you think 9/11 wasn't one?

There is a HUGE difference between the terrorists intentionally, or purposefully targeting 3000 innocent Americans who had done absolutely nothing against the terrorists in Afghanistan and the United States troops going after the terrorists who targeted and killed 3000 innocent lives porposefully. The troops are not going after innocent civilians on purpose. Think of it like a ricochet affect that accidentally comes flying in the innocent civilians direction from the affects of war. 9/11 was not a ricochet affect like that. The planes were used purposefully to take down the World Trade Center in order to intentionally kill 3000 lives that day.


The United States was NOT targeting civilians and that is a huge difference. The United States was sent in to help catch the terrorists who planned 9/11 which was an act of war and other jihadists who were harboring Bin Laden and other terrorists.

Of course Bin Laden is not going to turn himself in. That must be what you think since you believe that the United States has no basis to EVER defend itself against terrorists who want to kill us. That is exactly why we are in Afghanistan and trying to catch him. The United States is in fact gaining the trust of the Afghanis by helping to build infrastructure projects that would benefit the Afghan people.

Listen, What if Bush had not passed the Patriot Act, and not started the DEpt. of Homeland Security and another massive terrorist attack had happened after 9/11?
Would you have blamed him for doing nothing? Probably.

Bush did the proper accommadations to make sure that there would not be another major terrorist attck on U.S. soil again. Well, it did. At least while Bush was still in office.

There are many good things in the Patriot Act that make it possible for terrorist attacks to be prevented and to catch the terrorists in the process of planning terrorist attacks. If you called overseas do you really think that you would have the same privacy that you would have calling someone domestically? Nope. There could be some person from that country's government you are calling listening in on your conversation regardless of the Patriot Act.

Your thoughts are seditious. You are advocating that terrorists have the right to kill Americans. That is seditious in nature. You are not for our American troops with that kind of thought.

A country can never do anything to us. It is the people within a certain country that attacked us on 9/11 and then harbored Bin Laden after 9/11. Doing nothing makes us less secure as a nation. It shows that the nation is not willing to defend itself. It shows weakness that the terrorists will take advantage of. The terrorists will not just stop committing their acts of violence just because America stops defending herself. They believe that Allah is calling them to destroy the West, which is us, and they do not want to compromise with us. That is such a naive thought, to think that the terrorists will stop following Allah just because we stop defending our nation against their attacks and that they will make some kind of compromise with America.

Terrorists are MUCH DIFFERENT than Muslim Fundamenatlaists. Look up the difference. Fundametalists don't believe in violence and terrorists DO believe in violence.

Liberty said...

Teresa-
9/11 was not an act of war. It was an act of TERROR instigated by ONE MAN and his underground organization.

I have explained this so many times, and yet you still refuse to even acknowledge the difference. Terrorists are not a country we can attack. They have no base of operations. Conventional warfare does absolutely nothing. NOTHING. As eight years of war have proved!

How many terrorists have we caught during this war? How many terrorist cells have we overturned? Tell me one thing this war has given us- besides debt. Just one. Give me one thing that is beneficial to us that we have accomplished.

I do not think that we have no right to defend ourselves. I merely think we are not going about it the correct way. Which I have explained. Like, ten times now.

We cannot invade an entire sovereign country in a futile effort to find a few hundred militants. We've been trying it for eight years now, and it hasn't worked. We have nothing but an enormous debt to show for the years we've been fighting. The terrorists are no less of a force, they're not backing down, and our interventionism and imperialism is merely making it worse!

Bin Laden won't turn himself in. But we haven't found him either. So what are we going to do? Keep chasing him around the globe until we get ourselves into so much debt we can't survive, or an entire generation of our boys and girls are gone, fighting in wars we can't win?

No, the Afghans DON'T want us there. News Story Sorry, but that doesn't sound like gaining the trust of the Afghan people.

I doubt another terrorist attack would have come. There hadn't been another attack before that, there hasn't been one since...yeah, I don't think DHS and the PATRIOT act really prevented that much.

NOTHING that infringes on my liberties, in any way, is right. Nothing. I don't care how much it will keep me safe. Martial law might keep me safe too, but you better believe I'm not gonna' submit to that.

We're not talking about calling overseas. I understand that other country's rules are different than ours. But how is that relevant? We're not talking about other countries. We're talking about our countries, and the freedoms that we have in this country.

You are WAY misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not advocating terrorists killing Americans. I am merely not condoning a war that, in eight years, has gotten us exactly ZERO. What if Britain wanted to come here, and get the militants here. Because we do have them here. Furthermore, we're harboring them! They come here, and get on welfare. We helped the 9/11 terrorists. They got welfare payments, and we trained them how to fly planes.

But if Britain came here and tried to do that, we'd tell them to take a hike, and probably start a war over it.

BTW, do you know what 'seditious' means? "insurgent: in opposition to a civil authority or government."
I am not in opposition to our government, because this is an unconstitutional war. It was not declared. Hence, I am upholding our government whole-heartedly.

Liberty said...

A country can't do anything to us?

Okay...so I guess WWII and WWI and the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were just all a bad daydream!! I mean, a country can't do anything to us after all.

Okay.

Afghanistan. Did. Not. Attack. Us.

It was bin Laden. Get it straight.

Bin Laden was acting as a terrorist. He did not live in Afghanistan all the time. He has also lived in the Sudan, and in Somalia- his family was from Yemen and Saudi Arabia!! The Taliban also had dissenting members who didn't think they should keep bin Laden in their country. But Mullah Omar proved to be stubborn.

Okay...so the world thinks we're peace loving weaklings? Yeah, they all know we hate war. What with...Korea. And Vietnam...and the Gulf...and the Afghan-Soviet war...and Bosnia...I mean, we've totally proved we're weaklings.

Besides, someone with true strength does not need to fight. It's only the bullies who go and beat people up.

Actually, the Qur'an orders Muslims to give peace to those who want peace. I thought I had the reference saved, but somehow it got lost, but I think it's in chapter 24 of the Qur'an. But we can't say that we want peace, because we went in there and attacked. That might have been our biggest defense- using their own religion, something they can't combat- and now we've squandered it in a costly, unconstitutional war.

You still continue to refuse to acknowledge that this is an unconstitutional war. CONGRESS declares war. Not the President.

And your point with the whole Muslim thing is....? I guess you're responding to my PR issue.

When we confirm bin Laden's opinion of us, it lets him spout off more. When moderate Muslims see he has a point, they're not going to be near as opposed to him as they once were.

Teresa said...

Liberty,
Since we did not declare war and we are not engaged in a war it can't be bad.

We are engaged in two military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq which Congress authorized. Bush did not authorize the use of military force himself. The Congress approved the military forces going in both countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

I hope that you specifically find Bin Laden and experience "peace" right from him. I think you should go over to Pakistan/Afghnaistan and negotiate peace with him. You are naive in thinking that these terrorists want to negotiate or stop with committing their violence. You have no idea what the Muslim religion promotes.

Liberty said...

That is the whole point. This is an unconstitutional, undeclared war. Yet our soldiers are still dying- for no cause.

Congress authorizing them is not the same as declaring war. The link you posted states "A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another."

We did not do that. We merely invaded. Not the same. Not even close to the same. A declaration of war is like the declaration of independence- we write up a declaration and send it to the country we plan to attack. But we didn't do that. Hence this war is unconstitutional.

I would be happy to go and try to negotiate peace with him. I'd like to sit down and talk with him, if nothing more. I'd like to learn the physchology that drives him, get more indepth with why he doesn't like us- more even than he stated in the portion of his declaration I posted. But I can't do that because America has taken military action against him instead of even trying to resolve it peacefully.

But even that is a nonissue in this discussion. Because attacking a sovereign country to find one man- bin Laden- isn't working, and won't work.

I have no idea what Islam promotes...I just directed you to the Qur'an. (I'm planning on reading it in more detail soon...have to add it to my already huge reading list. ^.^) I'd like to ask bin Laden about that passage- but, like I said, he'd just point to our actions and say we don't want peace. Which many of us don't, unfortunately. America's history has been exceedingly warlike.

Teresa said...

They are not unconsititutional wars. They are not wars at all. This is considered an extended military action that was authorized by Congress. The fact that both military actions were authorized by Congress makes both the military engagements legitimate and justified since, yes, 9/11 was an act of war and that is the reason the U.S. responded in such a fashion. 9/11 was an attack on our soil that was planned by our enemies in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a rogue state that sponsored terror and kept Bin Laden and his followers from being captured by the United States. We are not just going after one man. WE are going after the terrorists located in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Iraq has been much more successful than the others. The military has killed many terrorists in all three countries. You may not hear about the killings, but our brave men and women in the military have killed many terrorists. I have just surfed the internet and found many examples. Here are a few:

1)July 15, 2006
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Coalition and Afghan forces killed more than 40 (terrorists) across southern Afghanistan on Saturday, including 10 in a large-scale air assault aimed at wresting a desert town from Taliban control.

2)October 28, 2009
25 terrorists killed in SWaziristan operation

http://terrorism-online.blogspot.com/2007/06/two-terrorists-killed-20-suspects.html

http://sify.com/news/30-terrorists-killed-in-pakistan-news-features-jjnctifgbbg.html

KABUL (Reuters) - U.S.-led coalition forces killed 32 insurgents in fighting
that erupted in a village in eastern Afghanistan following a raid on a
hideout of bomb makers, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

This is not about killing just one man as you think. This is about killing terrorists which our troops are doing. We are winning in Iraq. Now we can start winning in Afganistan/Pakistan.

Liberty said...

"They are not unconsititutional wars. They are not wars at all. This is considered an extended military action that was authorized by Congress."

Mm-hmm. Well, in case you hadn't noticed, this extended military action is bankrupting us. We'd already been operating on zero funds since Reagan. This doesn't make it any better.

Just redefining something does not make it OK. We have used that- Bush used that- to justify so many things. "oh look, we're capturing people! But they're not enemy soldiers, oh no! They are now enemy combatants!"

"This isn't a war!! It's merely an extended stay in another country where we kill their people and overthrow their government!!"

Just because we redefine something to make it easier for our conscience to swallow doesn't make it right.

"Our enemies in Afghanistan..."

I have tried to explain this so many times, before long I am going to just give up.

Afghanistan, the country, did nothing to us. When we went in there, we had no idea this side of heaven where Osama bin Laden was. He might have been here for all we knew. But we went anyway.

Iraq was not about terrorism. Our mission statement there was NEVER about terrorism. It went from being about mysteriously non-existent WMD's to overthrowing Saddam, to 'furthering democracy'- which is strange, since we don't have democracy in this country anyway. At the moment, we have no idea what we're doing there.

Now I wonder, how many of those insurgents were human shields, or civilians impressed into service?

We cannot attack entire sovereign countries to find a few hundred militants. If it works so fine and dandy, then why is it that we've been embroiled in these wars for eight years, and we still have a terrorism problem? Why is it that we're not making more headway? Why haven't we caught bin Laden yet?

The fact of the matter is that we went into two sovereign countries. We went in on sketchy intelligence concerning al Qaeda's movements. We went in and ruined governments and infrastructures. We went in and intervened in matters that were not our concern.

The war on terror is a farce. You cannot fight terrorism with a conventional war. Terrorism is a tactic. The men who use it, the 'terrorists', are hidden all over the world. We will never weed them all out.

It would be much easier, and much less costly, to simply listen to the demands they have made, and make a timely drawout. We do not need to be there. There is no reason. Our operations there are costly, and bring in very few results. A few men killed here and there, a camp taken out once every other year.

Sometimes, you've just got to say that there is nothing you can do, that the actions you have taken are wrong. There is no shame in that. There is no shame in acceding to requests that people have given us. Osama bin Laden has been saying these things for a long time. And we disregarded him. And now we're paying the price. Is it so very amazing that he attacked us when we were occupying what he believes to be Muslim lands- and what, technically, are?

Let's flip this- let's say WE were the ones being occupied by the Afghans and Iraqis. Would we stand for it? Would we wait a few years before launching an attack? In reality, bin Laden was actually quite patient with us, waiting as long as he did for us to leave!

Teresa said...

"Mm-hmm. Well, in case you hadn't noticed, this extended military action is bankrupting us. We'd already been operating on zero funds since Reagan. This doesn't make it any better."

Clinton and the Republican controlled congress had a surplus. We may be bankrupt now but it hasn't been since Reagan. And, our war budget is only 12% of the total defense budget.

Just because the Obama administration refers to terrorists as enemy combatants doesn't mean that they aren't terrorists and are not our enemy. heck the Obama administration doesn't even think that there is a global war on terror anymore.

My conscience can accept it just fine since the extended military engagments were authorized by Congress.


In Afghanistan what government? In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who was terrorizing his people by purposefully killing his citizens and having women raped.

Iraq has their own government now. WE are not ruling there.

Do you realize actually how close we came to catching Bin Laden?

WE were real dang close.

Who carries the ideology of terrorism?

If we kill the people who carry that ideology, spread the ideology of terrorism, and threaten to advance the ideology of terrorism and spread the ideology to as many places as possible then we can prevent the spread of terrorism. And, these terrorists who hold the ideology of terrorism live in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan so we must stop them in those places.


Some things that take the longest and are the hardest are the most worthwhile things. Afghanistan was doing good until about 2-3 years ago when the insurgency rebuilt itself. In Iraq, there have been great accomplishment and the troops will be leaving soon.


Terrorism is not a farce. Terrorism is what has killed people on 9/11, Madrid Train bombing, London bombing, and U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Bin Laden just wants us to stop so that he can gather more terrorists, train them, and be able to kill more innocent civilians.


What if the religious right had taken over this country, instituted draconian Biblical laws from the Old Testament, attacked other countries, and then one of those countries deposed our President? And, the other country was doing this to help us, would you be against it?

That is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are helping them gain freedom.

Liberty said...

It sure ain't helping our budget that we're spending billions over there every year. Not when we have a massive economic downturn, our insurance system is in the toilet, and our stock market is on the verge of collapse.

The Bush administration referred to them as unlawful enemy combatants as well. Don't pin that one on the Bushama 2 Admin, because it wasn't their fault.

But it is still not Constitutional.

The Taliban were the government in Afghanistan. We may not have liked them, but they were still the government. They brought stability to a region that had not had any since the Afghan-Soviet war and before. There was constant infighting between Mujahideen lords before the Taliban took over, and the Taliban ended all that.

Just because Saddam was horrible does not give us the right to go in and wreck their country. They had a government. Saddam was their leader. That was none of our business. The fact is that we went in with no justification. Saddam was none of our business.

No, we're just advising and supporting them. And occupying their country. And holding the reins of power over their people. That's not ruling them. Not at all. That's just....uh...

But we didn't catch him.

He's still out there.

And we're still fighting two wars on sovereign countries that are still just as wrong as they were before.

Sorry to break it to you, but terrorists live EVERYWHERE!! They are all over the dang planet, and there is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING we can do about them. Waging a bunch of wasteful wars will do absolutely zero!!!!

And the fact that the insurgency rebuilt itself is proof that you will never quash these people. We have not listened to the lessons of history. The British tried to put down the Afghans. The Russians tried it. And now we're trying. It does not work.

The terrorists will keep breeding, no matter where you go and wage war. The more we wage war, the more angry these people get, and the more they will fight. They will fight until every single one of them is dead, and then their sons will come up to replace them. It is a waste. It is a waste of manpower, it is a waste of money, and it is a waste of our time and the world's.

I did not say terrorism was a farce. I said the War on Terror was a farce. And I've explained why. You cannot fight terrorism. It is a TACTIC. You cannot fight a tactic.

Bin Laden has been saying these things for thirty years. He wants us to vacate his people's land. And that is right. We have no business over there. I do agree with him on that. I do not agree with his way of going about trying to get us to see his point, but I DO agree with his incentive.

If that had happened, I'd be saying we deserved it- if we attacked another country. If we attack another country without proper- Constitutional- justification, we deserve what we get. But if another country just came in here- I'd be blasting them up one side and down the other. I'd be vehemently opposing them just as I vehemently oppose the Bushama administrations.

Since you are not listening to me, I guess this debate is effectively over. I have tried to explain things to you about thirty times now, and you still refuse to listen to me. Goodbye.

Teresa said...

I am listening and you make absoloutely no sense.

Since you haven't come to your senses and the reality about war/military engagements and what it takes to stop terrorists in order to keep this country safe, Goodbye.