For the long haul

The Post Modern · Post by **The Post Modern** » 9/30/2004, 7:31 pm

This is not my usual place of choice in the CM forums, but being that I am directly involved in the biggest issue of the moment, I am going to put my two cents in on it. I am somewhat limited in what I can say about things due to the fact that most of my conclusions are based on classified information and the fact that I am contractually obligated not to say anything that could have a negative effect on the administration. So I guess that really, all I will be doing here is asking pointed questions.

Do you think that the United states should not have become involved in a military campaign in Iraq? If not, why? Would you let someone go who has killed your brother or mother, father, sister, etc. simply because they managed to run back to the group that sent them to do it? Do you wait for others who are working toward a chance to kill you and those you love. Are you comfortable with wondering when the next big terrorist attack will come? Or is it okay as long as it's no one you loved who dies?

Do you think that the United States military can pull out of Iraq in the near future? Why and if so, do you think that the United states will have any credibility in the next century if we do pull out and Iraq is taken over by a large terrorist group?

Do you have any good reason to believe that Kerry can speed up the process toward an egress of U.S. troops? If so, what would that be?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 9/30/2004, 7:49 pm

I think the United States should have left it with Osama, they couldn't find him, so they needed something to make them look good. If some bastard killed anyone close to me, then I wouldn't be able to go after them because I would be dead too, cause I would have fought to the death to protect them. If they killed them when I wasn't around I would hunt the bastard down, but I'd stop with him. If I see a legitimate threat towards me or my family/friends then of course I'll stop it, but I need proof not heresay. There are terrorist groups everywhere, just because the US is there doesn't mean their some almighty unstoppable God, they can be tricked and fooled, just because they're there doesn't mean all's well, they are making things worse in some cases.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 9/30/2004, 7:56 pm

In most cases it seems.

The Post Modern · Post by **The Post Modern** » 9/30/2004, 8:11 pm

Making things worse or bringing bad things to light?

The Post Modern · Post by **The Post Modern** » 9/30/2004, 8:14 pm

Trust me, it is truly ignorance that kills. The fact that you do not see the threat before it kills your family does not mean it is not there. You say you would fight it, but the bigger question is, "Are you?".

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 9/30/2004, 8:20 pm

It is truly the ignorant who allow a government to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 on the basis of finding non existant "weapons of mass destruction."

To add to that if the United States were to attack every country that they "percieved to be a threat", then they'd be waging a war againts nations far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

The Post Modern · Post by **The Post Modern** » 9/30/2004, 8:30 pm

Leave it with Osama? Are you aware of how many there are who are looking to make Osama look like small potatoes? You expect to be able to kill the beast by striking its head off, but there is a good reason we call them 'terrorist cells'. They are able to work independent of leadership and there is always someone there who can step into any neccessary role.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 9/30/2004, 8:34 pm

And therefore taking out an entire country will solve your terrorist problem? Thinking like that is just as naive as thinking that eliminating Osama will do it.

The Post Modern · Post by **The Post Modern** » 9/30/2004, 8:57 pm

Joe Cool wrote:It is truly the ignorant who allow a government to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 on the basis of finding non existant "weapons of mass destruction."

To add to that if the United States were to attack every country that they "percieved to be a threat", then they'd be waging a war againts nations far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

Here's where it gets tricky for me. I can't really comment on this whole WMD thing, but I think it would be foolish to think that that is the only reason that a military engagement might be neccessary.

I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities of a large group of Jihadists who hate you and who believe the ultimate achievement in life would be to kill you. Oh, there are other dangerous nations, but if you think that they are far more dangerous then why do you think we didn't use the same strategy against them instead that you think has been used with Iraq?

All this aside, the main thing I would like to get at is how soon the general populace here (CM'ers) thinks U.S. forces could pull out of Iraq?

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 9/30/2004, 8:58 pm

I think we've already had 50 threads about this. I don't know if there's something you're trying to get at that hasn't been said or what?

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 9/30/2004, 9:26 pm

The Post Modern wrote:
Joe Cool wrote:It is truly the ignorant who allow a government to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 on the basis of finding non existant "weapons of mass destruction."

To add to that if the United States were to attack every country that they "percieved to be a threat", then they'd be waging a war againts nations far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

Oh, there are other dangerous nations, but if you think that they are far more dangerous then why do you think we didn't use the same strategy against them instead that you think has been used with Iraq?

Because there is little advantage in going againts a country like North Korea for example.

All this aside, the main thing I would like to get at is how soon the general populace here (CM'ers) thinks U.S. forces could pull out of Iraq?

How soon? If I had my way they would have never entered, but all hopeful thinking aside I believe the US wont be able to leave for at least 3-4 years.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 9/30/2004, 11:04 pm

The Post Modern wrote:Here's where it gets tricky for me. I can't really comment on this whole WMD thing, but I think it would be foolish to think that that is the only reason that a military engagement might be neccessary.

Why can't you comment? Are you in the military?

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 10/1/2004, 9:30 am

Do you think that the United states should not have become involved in a military campaign in Iraq? If not, why?

They had no right. They were the agressors against a smaller and defensless nation.

Would you let someone go who has killed your brother or mother, father, sister, etc. simply because they managed to run back to the group that sent them to do it?

No.

Do you wait for others who are working toward a chance to kill you and those you love. Are you comfortable with wondering when the next big terrorist attack will come? Or is it okay as long as it's no one you loved who dies?

The next big terrorist attack happened in Iraq when the US army arrived. They've been terrorizing the people of that country ever since.

Do you think that the United States military can pull out of Iraq in the near future? Why and if so, do you think that the United states will have any credibility in the next century if we do pull out and Iraq is taken over by a large terrorist group?

What credibility is left to lose?

Do you have any good reason to believe that Kerry can speed up the process toward an egress of U.S. troops? If so, what would that be?

I think he'll leave them in there.

wanan · Post by **wanan** » 10/1/2004, 4:15 pm

The Post Modern wrote:Do you think that the United states should not have become involved in a military campaign in Iraq? If not, why? Would you let someone go who has killed your brother or mother, father, sister, etc. simply because they managed to run back to the group that sent them to do it?

Perhaps I'm just reading this wrong, but you seem to be under the false assumption, the same one Bush keeps pushing, that Iraq had a connection to the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission found that they did not.

Do you wait for others who are working toward a chance to kill you and those you love. Are you comfortable with wondering when the next big terrorist attack will come? Or is it okay as long as it's no one you loved who dies?

I refuse to live my life in fear of terrorism, in fact, I have more fear of the American government at this point. Besides, we have no idea when an attack is coming except vague warnings from a color coded system that only is successful in keeping the American public in a state of fear and therefore more willing to give up certain freedoms and let the government run unchecked.

Do you think that the United States military can pull out of Iraq in the near future? Why and if so, do you think that the United states will have any credibility in the next century if we do pull out and Iraq is taken over by a large terrorist group?

I don't think the US will be out of Iraq any time soon. And to echo the statements above, the US doesn't really have any credibility left on a global scale.

Do you have any good reason to believe that Kerry can speed up the process toward an egress of U.S. troops? If so, what would that be?

I doubt Kerry can speed up the removal of troops, but I do think he has a better chance of gaining more support internationally and mending relationships with other countries, perhaps even gaining military aide in Iraq, which could see the return of some troops. However, I would guess a foreign military presence in Iraq will be there for quite some time.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 10/1/2004, 4:52 pm

To us we see all of this as terrorism, to them they see it as making a point or trying to get noticed. They obviously had some reason for doing what they did. Now America is bombing them and invading their country. Now America is the terrorists to them, and we see it as doing something good.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 10/1/2004, 6:05 pm

there are some facts that need to be brought to the forefront. (By the way this doesn't work if everyone is against the USA... buddy who started the topic has to come back eventually lol).

1. Not one of the terrorists came from Iraq.

2. The vast majority (if not all but at least 80%) were from Saudi Arabia. Yet not once has Saudi Arabia been deemed a target.

3. It is not a matter of "freeing" an oppressed country. I'd just like to point out Amnesty International's report on Saudi Arabia. http://www.amnesty.ca/SaudiArabia/

4. I understand the reasoning for attacking Afghanistan. The Taliban were supporting the terrorists in many ways, but it's been made very clear by various sources that Saddam and Osama never agreed with eachother, and Osama thought of Saddam as an infidel.

5. You can't stop terrorism.

6. Before 9/11 the largest acts of terrorism on the USA were commited by American citizens: Columbine (and other various school shootings) and Oklahoma City.

7. The US government has supported countless acts of terrorism around the world.

I think that there is enough to show why the US invasion was wrong...

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 10/1/2004, 7:06 pm

Wow, I think we finally agree on something J-Neli.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 10/2/2004, 12:32 am

Good work nielson although i don't agree with you growing anarchist ideals, your right about everything else. You to Doug.

Oh and good to see the only other Manitoban back in action. Shitty weather lately eh?

I'm not even going to start in this topic, i'm to tired, and some people are just so fundamentally diffrent then me that i can't even comprehend them, or argue anymore. All i can say is you people hurt my brain.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 10/2/2004, 8:36 am

I wouldn't say I'm developing anarchist ideals. I've just developed a better understanding of the system and I understand how it could work, but its doubtful it ever will. It does make a lot of sense, but it's one of those things where theory and practice may be two completely different things.

I just read Matt's blog for the day... I think we were riding the same brainwave or something lol

http://www.matthewgood.org/web/mblog/2004/10/human-rights-for-bush-theyre.html

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 10/4/2004, 6:49 pm

The Post Modern wrote:Do you think that the United states should not have become involved in a military campaign in Iraq?

it should have been done through the proper channels. (UN) it was not done so, and it has raised many questions about how the UN handles it's policies.

Would you let someone go who has killed your brother or mother, father, sister, etc. simply because they managed to run back to the group that sent them to do it?

no, i would hunt down the whole entire group of individuals and at the same time look into why it is my family was a target.

Do you wait for others who are working toward a chance to kill you and those you love. Are you comfortable with wondering when the next big terrorist attack will come? Or is it okay as long as it's no one you loved who dies?

you research those individuals, not wait. look into their reasoning and rationale and find weeknesses to their group and capabilities.

Do you think that the United States military can pull out of Iraq in the near future? Why and if so, do you think that the United states will have any credibility in the next century if we do pull out and Iraq is taken over by a large terrorist group?

within 2 years the military can pull out. simply show down every border that iraq has and keep it isolated others looking to come in and exploit this country. during this time, all insurgents must be found out and the people of iraq must work toward a brighter future. in terms of credability, this solution would regain any way may have lost during this campaign.

Do you have any good reason to believe that Kerry can speed up the process toward an egress of U.S. troops? If so, what would that be?

this is a mess, no matter how many times bush's people and the mindless zombies that follow him tell you it's not a mess, it is in fact a mess. Kerry realizes that it is a mess, as does the american public. the only way to fix this problem is to aknowlege that it is a mess and that it must be cleaned up. Bush's pride, his lackeys, his political party will never aknowlege that this is a mess, and as long as they will refuse to aknowlege it, it will continue to be a mess.

ClumsyMonkey.net

For the long haul

For the long haul

Re: For the long haul

Re: For the long haul