6 years later...

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

That is a good way to oversimplify it. Giving them weapons and and funds is a way of enabling them, and no country in their right minds would give weapons and money to radical Middle Eastern factions....

People who don't want to follow the US into some costly war of attrition are not terrorist enablers, they just don't have the military capabilities to go all the way like the US, not to mention they do not owe them anything. There is a middle ground in this.

EDIT To restate what ekiM has said, we don't like the terrorists, we think they are murderous monsters and we would love to see them disarm and disband but we know that isn't going to happen.

No, we want to wipe them out. The only difference between us and them, is that they are willing to do it without caring if they look like assholes, because they have no other option. They die either way... better to take out some of your enemy when you go, than to go quietly.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Iggy

You are talking about fanatics, and their are fanatics on both sides. Rednecks are about as fanatical to their leadership as terrorists.

Rednecks don't intentionally target civilian populations that are defenseless.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

I want to try and keep this subject from dropping into the flame war that many other threads have. I'd ask that you try and tone down the "You're an Asshole" and other rhetoric and let's try to have a healthy discussion.

There are those of you who seem to believe that we are the cause of some of the middle easts problems. Some questions, so that I understand your positions.

1) If the United States removed all troops, support, and money from the Middle East, would Al Qaeda cease to exist?

2) Would all conflicts and wars in the middle east cease?

3) What will happen to the 7,150,000 inhabitants of Israel?

Scuzzy

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Rednecks don't intentionally target civilian populations that are defenseless.

Scuzzy

HA! You need to meet some rednecks, my friend!

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Iggy

HA! You need to meet some rednecks, my friend!

Do you also believe that those groups of people asked for it too?

[Iggy]

Be specific.... which groups?

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I want to try and keep this subject from dropping into the flame war that many other threads have. I'd ask that you try and tone down the "You're an Asshole" and other rhetoric and let's try to have a healthy discussion.

There are those of you who seem to believe that we are the cause of some of the middle easts problems. Some questions, so that I understand your positions.

1) If the United States removed all troops, support, and money from the Middle East, would Al Qaeda cease to exist?

2) Would all conflicts and wars in the middle east cease?

3) What will happen to the 7,150,000 inhabitants of Israel?

Scuzzy

1)No. That is to say, if we remove ourselves from the Middle East, they will not disappear because of that act. If they were to disappear, it would be because of some other factor. They do not exist because we exist. The chances are, however, they would not attack America. Again, they did not attack us because we are free and prosperous.

2)No, of course not. But they wouldn't cease with us in there. Period. Our business is to defend ourselves, not invade sovereign nations without a deceleration of war. Let them have their conflicts. Conflicts will occur whether we're there or not.

3)They have their own military that is able to defend their own selves. They are taking our taxpayers' money to defend themselves currently as well. Again, our business is defend ourselves.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

1)No. That is to say, if we remove ourselves from the Middle East, they will not disappear because of that act. If they were to disappear, it would be because of some other factor. They do not exist because we exist. The chances are, however, they would not attack America. Again, they did not attack us because we are free and prosperous.

I believe one of the reasons is our media and our culture that seems to be leaking into their countries. Is it our responsibility to stop that, or should that be upon them to prevent it from entering their country?

Originally Posted by uBeR

2)No, of course not. But they wouldn't cease with us in there. Period. Our business is to defend ourselves, not invade sovereign nations without a deceleration of war. Let them have their conflicts. Conflicts will occur whether we're there or not.

I think fighting the "declaration of war" argument is splitting hairs. If the administration had gone into a full scale invasion into Iraq without consulting or asking Congess' permission, yes, we would have a constitutional crisis. The fact is they did go to the congress, and he did ask them for authorization, and they said "Do it." In a time when Iraq would not know we were declaring war, and we would still have the element of surprise, I can understand the use of it. But, if I'm Saddam Hussien and I have US Forces on my border and I turn on CNN and I hear that congress is 5 votes shy of a declaration of war and it's not looking good, I'm gonna launch first and hope I do some damage before they're ready... I'm not going to wait to see if things can cool down. We authorized the war in a manner to give the possibility that a war would not be needed, but the time the operation would start would be decided by us without his prior knowledge of formal conflict.

Also, I am sure you can agree that in order to fight Al Qaeda we should not have to declare war on every single country that may be helping them in order to air strike one of their bases, or send in special forces to get one of their people from another country, correct?

Originally Posted by uBeR

3)They have their own military that is able to defend their own selves. They are taking our taxpayers' money to defend themselves currently as well. Again, our business is defend ourselves.

With us backing Israel the middle east leaves them alone except for the occasional car bomb. If we say, "We will do nothing to stop you from destroying Israel" you can be sure that Israel is going to use nuclear weapons to stop them when they get attacked from all sides. Is that an acceptable alternative to our "meddling"?

Scuzzy

[SizeableSSonic]

Jesus Christ... you have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

[Iggy]

Damn....I drifted off.....did Jesus tell a joke? What was it?

[Demasu]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Damn....I drifted off.....did Jesus tell a joke? What was it?

[SizeableSSonic]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Damn....I drifted off.....did Jesus tell a joke? What was it?

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I believe one of the reasons is our media and our culture that seems to be leaking into their countries. Is it our responsibility to stop that, or should that be upon them to prevent it from entering their country?

That may or may not be true. I don't know. If it is, we don't have any responsibility to tell any nation what they can and cannot watch or see. If they want to censor media, then by all means let them.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Also, I am sure you can agree that in order to fight Al Qaeda we should not have to declare war on every single country that may be helping them in order to air strike one of their bases, or send in special forces to get one of their people from another country, correct?

We shall not invade any sovereign nation to fight terrorists. No. That's not okay.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

With us backing Israel the middle east leaves them alone except for the occasional car bomb. If we say, "We will do nothing to stop you from destroying Israel" you can be sure that Israel is going to use nuclear weapons to stop them when they get attacked from all sides. Is that an acceptable alternative to our "meddling"?

Our business is to defend the security of America and its citizens. If Congress (and by extension, the American people, theoretically) approves military spending to defend Israel from imminent threat, then so be it.