# War is Not the Answer



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

But I don't know what is!


 Looking back on US wars of the last hundred years or so, failures far outnumber successes. WWI and WWII are considered successes, but were they?
 Is the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the West the cause of many of the problems within the Middle East today?
 Why did we leave a N Korea that is isolated from the civilized world?
 Have we ever been successful when intervening in a civil war
 Was Gulf War II the result of Gulf War I
 Are we safer as a result of the War in Afghanistan?
 Are we safer because we helped topple Qaddafi and Mubarak?
 Would ISIS be a danger to US if there was no Gulf War II
 Will sending ground troops into Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS make us safer?
 I'm sure you could add many more questions to these. 

The point is, I can understand why the Obama administration is looking for alternatives to a ground war, which rarely has long term positive effects; but what are real alternatives to war?


 Maybe we should assassinate the leaders of ISIS. We should also counter ISIS videos by showing young kids exactly what ISIS wants them for - canon fodder pushed out front to die.
 I also don't understand why ISIS is allowed to sell oil. A few well placed bombs could stop that.
 There also needs to be a condemnation by Islamic scholars and religious leaders. The US and the West should make it clear, they are either with ISIS or they condemn ISIS.
 We should cut a deal with Assad in Syria. Make him agree to a few token reforms, pardon the free Syrian Army, severe ties with Iran and Hezbollah, and create a more inclusive government. Then have Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq all commit ground forces to wipe out ISIS, with US and allied air support.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

They kill one of ours (American, English, Japaneses, French, etc.) - We kill 1,000 of theirs.

Our killing methods can take any form. Special forces, assassinations, air strikes, sponsoring Arab coalition ground forces. Whatever it takes.

Most importantly, we need to get as good as ISIS is with public messaging and being clear what our goals are.

0bama and his professor-like wishy-washy speechifying is the absolute opposite of what we need. 

I do agree with his idea with communicating with them on their level. That is - Kill one of ours and we kill 1,000 of yours. We will come for you in the middle of the night, wherever you might try to hide. We will find you.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Historically, war has often been the answer. I tend to think that the problem recently has been that war hasn't been prosecuted properly. All this 'proportionate response' 'limit collateral damage' stuff has simply resulted in ineffective wars. The Carthaginians, Germans, Japanese and a whole bunch of other peoples bear silent witness to what actually works.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

War is mostly not a choice one government can make. Sometimes there are wars of adventure where a country forces contact but for the other side that war is not a choice. Doing nothing does not mean war will not come to you. In fact, sometimes it means it will more certainly come to you.
The form of war also is hard to contain. Selected violence is very hard. That for instance the idea of bombing oil capacity to put a financial strangle hold. That was sort of the idea of behind the oil embargo but look at the people here who say that the US doing that resulted in "children dying of malnutrition. "
The trouble is that people seem to want different and conflicting things from the same action. They want something ugly and messy and imprecise not to splatter back on them yet be totally effective. 

I consider that I am not speaking German or Japanese as the language of government a victory. That I am still living under the Constitution rather that the Manifesto is a victory. 

I thoroughly agree with clearer, firmer, more realistic messaging. Which to me means more Muslim involvement in the messaging to counter ISIS and groups like them. I was reading a piece in the NY Times this morning on it and it mention American Muslims not being involved in that because they were afraid of stereotyping and "islamophobia". Well Obama and others are stoking those fears when they should be encouraging the countermessaging.
Despite Obama's constant carping at non-muslims, this article said there was a growing fear of radicalized youth that is overcoming the fear of persecution. So that there was more action in countering ISIS like messaging. But I'll believe when I see it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Glade Runner said:


> Historically, war has often been the answer. I tend to think that the problem recently has been that war hasn't been prosecuted properly. All this 'proportionate response' 'limit collateral damage' stuff has simply resulted in ineffective wars. The Carthaginians, Germans, Japanese and a whole bunch of other peoples bear silent witness to what actually works.


But can we (US) fight an all out war without regard to civilian casualties? Can we drop a nuke short of a direct and overwhelming threat to US? Can we kill ISIS hundreds at a time?

Of course we can use overwhelming force, but we won't. And even if we did, we will not wipe out Islamic extremism and terrorism. It might slack off fow a few years or even decades, but it will come back even stronger - unless Islam goes through a reformation.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> I consider that I am not speaking German or Japanese as the language of government a victory. That I am still living under the Constitution rather that the Manifesto is a victory.


What about the other outcomes of the great wars? The Cold War, Bosnian War (and others), an artificial dividing of Middle East which has led to over 50 years of violence, partitioned Germany, etc.

I'm just suggesting a war victory over ISIS will be temporary at best.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

War never solves the problem it just postpones it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

War may be needed but only if a country is attacked by another country.
Making money off of war, attacking another country, trying to control other countries, thinking that war is a way of providing jobs, are not excuses for war. 
The people who decide that a war is necessary should be on the front lines fighting that war.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Some points to ponder. . . 

Violence isn't always the solution but sometimes it's the *only* solution.



War only works if its fought correctly. 

_You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back. Orson Scott Card - Children of the Mind_

To do otherwise results in the things you are seeing today.



Removing the option of war/violence only encourages your enemies.



If you look back in history you will seen many times when the failure to use violence early resulted in much more violence/death later. The greatest example is the peace in our time the world tried to get with Hitler.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> Some points to ponder. . .
> 
> Violence isn't always the solution but sometimes it's the *only* solution.
> 
> ...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> But can we (US) fight an all out war without regard to civilian casualties? Can we drop a nuke short of a direct and overwhelming threat to US? Can we kill ISIS hundreds at a time?
> 
> Of course we can use overwhelming force, but we won't. And even if we did, we will not wipe out Islamic extremism and terrorism. It might slack off fow a few years or even decades, but it will come back even stronger - unless Islam goes through a reformation.


You have to look at this conflict like a guerrilla action and there are only three basic ways to win. 1) You be so 'nice' that the local populace want to support you rather than the other side. 2) You be so 'nasty' that the local populace fears you more than the other side. 3) You follow the "no better friend, no worse enemy" where you are 'nice' to those who support you and 'nasty' to anyone who offers any kind of support to the other side.

Number 1 only works if the other side isn't being really 'nasty' which can not be said about extremist. And in today's political climate there's no way that the US would ever use number 2 nor 3. Until that changes we can not win and thousands more are going to die as we sit back and wring our hands.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> What about the other outcomes of the great wars? The Cold War, Bosnian War (and others), an artificial dividing of Middle East which has led to over 50 years of violence, partitioned Germany, etc.
> 
> I'm just suggesting a war victory over ISIS will be temporary at best.


Every evil is built into humans. Every victory is temporary. But the alternative to victory can be permanent- virtual disappearance. So every human can expect to have a fight over something as long as they have something worth fighting for.

And as I said before- re: the cold war, I don't live under the Communist Manifesto either. Sometimes just out lasting the idiocy is enough.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> What about the other outcomes of the great wars? The Cold War, Bosnian War (and others), an artificial dividing of Middle East which has led to over 50 years of violence, partitioned Germany, etc.
> 
> I'm just suggesting a war victory over ISIS will be temporary at best.


Could be. Its like cleaning out a grown up fence line. If after you get it cleaned out you sit back and do nothing in a few years it will be back in the state it was before you cleaned it out.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

pancho said:


> War may be needed but only if a country is attacked by another country.
> Making money off of war, attacking another country, trying to control other countries, thinking that war is a way of providing jobs, are not excuses for war.
> The people who decide that a war is necessary should be on the front lines fighting that war.


I totally agree, and along with sending people to the front who want war, send their sons and daughters with them. No exceptions! Also we should raise the money and pay for the war right now. No credit spending. The problem is the average citizen isn't bearing the cost, whether in blood or dollars. War should be hell for all who promote it, not just those on the receiving end.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> War never solves the problem it just postpones it.


Care to give examples of where a total war has failed to solve the problem?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> War may be needed but only if a country is attacked by another country.
> Making money off of war, attacking another country, trying to control other countries, thinking that war is a way of providing jobs, are not excuses for war.
> The people who decide that a war is necessary should be on the front lines fighting that war.


So the US fighting in Europe in the 40s wasn't "needed"? I don't remember Germany attacking the US before we went to war against them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> I totally agree, and along with sending people to the front who want war, send their sons and daughters with them. No exceptions! Also we should raise the money and pay for the war right now. No credit spending. The problem is the average citizen isn't bearing the cost, whether in blood or dollars. War should be hell for all who promote it, not just those on the receiving end.


So you can sit back enjoy the comfort and prosperity brought about by their suffering to protect you and yours. Astounding selfishness.

The notion that some "enjoy" war is as absurd as your passive approach to conflict. 

Sure people profit from war. Some people profit by anything and everything.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

People who say war is never the answer are naive. That's like saying violence is never the answer when you are protected by armed men who are willing to use violence, i.e. the police.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

HDRider said:


> So you can sit back enjoy the comfort and prosperity brought about by their suffering to protect you and yours. Astounding selfishness.
> 
> The notion that some "enjoy" war is as absurd as your passive approach to conflict.
> 
> Sure people profit from war. Some people profit by anything and everything.


You haven't a clue who I am and what I've done. I stand by what I posted. When it comes to war we as a nation haven't felt the full cost of our conflicts. I just want our society to be accountable, not have the can kicked down the road for another generation to pick up. All we are handing them is a watered down freedom and the bill for it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> So the US fighting in Europe in the 40s wasn't "needed"? I don't remember Germany attacking the US before we went to war against them.


Let other countries fight their own wars.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

HDRider said:


> So you can sit back enjoy the comfort and prosperity brought about by their suffering to protect you and yours. Astounding selfishness.
> 
> The notion that some "enjoy" war is as absurd as your passive approach to conflict.
> 
> Sure people profit from war. Some people profit by anything and everything.


Why should others decide to go to war and send other people? If they think war is necessary they should be willing to go themselves and take their children along. If it isn't that important then why go to war?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> Let other countries fight their own wars.


That's called Isolationism and it has its own history of failure.

People have a right to fear and hate war. But that does not mean they have the will or power to avoid it at all costs.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

where I want to said:


> That's called Isolationism and it has its own history of failure.
> 
> People have a right to fear and hate war. But that does not mean they have the will or power to avoid it at all costs.


Why should our sons and daughters be killed for the people in other countries?
Would you give your child's life for a person in another country that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> Why should our sons and daughters be killed for the people in other countries?
> Would you give your child's life for a person in another country that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see?


Why should a child die of abuse or a traffic accident? The issue is not choosing but how much are you willing to do to prevent it. Because war is quite capable of being delivered. 
You act like all people had to do is say no. But you must know, despite the intensity of your statements, that it is not that simple. Even if you were in charge here and could prevent actions here, that would not stop war being brought from outside.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Sure wish Barry Goldwater was around today.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Why should a child die of abuse or a traffic accident? The issue is not choosing but how much are you willing to do to prevent it. Because war is quite capable of being delivered.
> You act like all people had to do is say no. But you must know, despite the intensity of your statements, that it is not that simple. Even if you were in charge here and could prevent actions here, that would not stop war being brought from outside.


We are not talking about abuse or accident. We are talking about trading the lives of our children for the lives of people in other countries.
Are you willing to make that deal with your children?
It is a simple yes or no question.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> You haven't a clue who I am and what I've done. I stand by what I posted. When it comes to war we as a nation haven't felt the full cost of our conflicts. I just want our society to be accountable, not have the can kicked down the road for another generation to pick up. All we are handing them is a watered down freedom and the bill for it.


I know what you posted. I think I understood your post full well.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

pancho said:


> Why should our sons and daughters be killed for the people in other countries?
> Would you give your child's life for a person in another country that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see?


It's not like you are sending your 6 year old off to fight a war! 

The men and women of the armed forces today are all volunteers, nobody forced them into service. And if my own son signed up I would worry about him to no end, but I would support his decision and feel proud of him. He already risks his life as a volunteer fire fighter and first responder. Some people are able and willing to bear the burdens for the rest of society, and thank God for them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Care to give examples of where a total war has failed to solve the problem?


Every single war. It might solve the situation at the very point in time but it leaves resentment and hatred on both sides that always bubbles up in the end.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> We are not talking about abuse or accident. We are talking about trading the lives of our children for the lives of people in other countries.
> Are you willing to make that deal with your children?
> It is a simple yes or no question.


You know there are no simple answers to questions like that. For one, there is no such deal in reality so trying to force an answer to a not real question is a requiring I believe in the not real.
You are the only one talking about such a trade in such an arbitrary way. 
So no, I will not make answer to an 'are you still beating your wife question.' It is designed to put the responder in the wrong no matter what.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

where I want to said:


> You know there are no simple answers to questions like that. For one, there is no such deal in reality so trying to force an answer to a not real question is a requiring I believe in the not real.
> You are the only one talking about such a trade in such an arbitrary way.
> So no, I will not make answer to an 'are you still beating your wife question.' It is designed to put the responder in the wrong no matter what.


That is exactly what you are doing when you approve of sending our military to defend another country. Very few times those defending sending our military to defend other countries ever send their own children.
We don't seem to have a problem sending the children of other parents to other countries.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> That is exactly what you are doing when you approve of sending our military to defend another country. Very few times those defending sending our military to defend other countries ever send their own children.
> We don't seem to have a problem sending the children of other parents to other countries.


Since I come from a military family, not only did I live with the effects of that as a child to me, I know the effects from the other end. You are very wrong to say that those who support some military action or another are not the ones paying the price. The military, from top to bottom, is very much aware of the price they pay in their own family.
What they object to is the foolish, ill defined ideas that cause needless death and injury, not to mention aggravation, in choosing and running military actions.

Nothing is as simple in life as that statement. Nothing. Which is why it has never effected anything, no matter how often shouted in people's faces. 
If you really want to minimize war, then you need to recognize the complexity and address those many issues. Early and often.

And BTW because I disagree with your statement, does not mean I automatically fall into a supporter of war catagory.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Too many irrational and unrealistic statements made here to refute them all. Suffice it to say evil does exist, preemptive action can save your life (or country), and no two countries have ever simultaneously attacked each other.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Too many irrational and unrealistic statements made here to refute them all. Suffice it to say evil does exist, preemptive action can save your life (or country), and no two countries have ever simultaneously attacked each other.


Evil does exist. But does that mean one country has the right to invade other countries just because they think another country might be evil?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> Evil does exist. But does that mean one country has the right to invade other countries just because they think another country might be evil?


Does it matter what Japan thought when they attacked Pearl Harbor? The reality is they did attack and, without a massive response, there would have been continuing attacks until we surrendered. I prefer to not surrender. It's a fact of life that someone, be it person or country, will always seek to control you. Politicians and liberals seek it. Movements and religions seek it. Right now, Islam seeks it. The choice is simple. Either fight it by whatever means necessary or else let them control you. Obama chooses the latter. He'd be doing things differently if it were Christian terrorists.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Evil does exist. But does that mean one country has the right to invade other countries just because they think another country might be evil?


We invade other countries because it just so darned profitable. And yes, there's enough money in it for some that it's worth killing for. Worth it to them, anyway...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

poppy said:


> Does it matter what Japan thought when they attacked Pearl Harbor? The reality is they did attack and, without a massive response, there would have been continuing attacks until we surrendered. I prefer to not surrender. It's a fact of life that someone, be it person or country, will always seek to control you. Politicians and liberals seek it. Movements and religions seek it. Right now, Islam seeks it. The choice is simple. Either fight it by whatever means necessary or else let them control you. Obama chooses the latter. He'd be doing things differently if it were Christian terrorists.


People worry about what a single person thinks too much.

A country has the right to defend themselves. Another country does not have the right to decide they should make sure the country they want to wins. 
Japan attacked the U.S. It wasn't any business of any other country and the U.S.did not depend on any other country.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We invade other countries because it just so darned profitable. And yes, there's enough money in it for some that it's worth killing for. Worth it to them, anyway...


That is true. The U.S. would be in bad shape if they would not continually send troops and equipment to other countries. The number of unemployed would be much higher without the war machine industry. That and the returning military personnel would raise the % of unemployed to a much higher rate.
We, the U.S., have to have a war in other countries to keep the U.S. from failing.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

When that single person is your leader it behooves one to worry... 

I think the men that were under Custer's command would agree.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Let other countries fight their own wars.


So if your neighbor's field was on fire and the wind was blowing toward your place you'd sit back and say let him fight his own fire?

I MUCH rather fight wars before 1) they get really big and 2) on someone else's soil.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Why should our sons and daughters be killed for the people in other countries?
> Would you give your child's life for a person in another country that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see?


So you wouldn't want your son or daughter to be a firefighter or police office? Why should your son or daughter be killed trying to protect people "that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see"?

And yes I'd have no problems with any member of my family fighting for the freedom or protection of others. Notice the phrase under my name.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Every single war. It might solve the situation at the very point in time but it leaves resentment and hatred on both sides that always bubbles up in the end.


Really? So British resent and hate the US because we beat them in war? How about Canada? Germany? Japan? Spain? Italy? Unless you can say yes to all of those your statement is false and your logic is flawed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> People worry about what a single person thinks too much.
> 
> A country has the right to defend themselves. Another country does not have the right to decide they should make sure the country they want to wins.
> Japan attacked the U.S. It wasn't any business of any other country and the U.S.did not depend on any other country.


Ahh. . .you might want to read a little more history. If it wasn't for Australia and China the US could not have beaten Japan.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> So if your neighbor's field was on fire and the wind was blowing toward your place you'd sit back and say let him fight his own fire?
> 
> I MUCH rather fight wars before 1) they get really big and 2) on someone else's soil.


There is a lot of difference in a fire and a war. Only a person who has not experienced either would mix them up.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> So you wouldn't want your son or daughter to be a firefighter or police office? Why should your son or daughter be killed trying to protect people "that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see"?
> 
> And yes I'd have no problems with any member of my family fighting for the freedom or protection of others. Notice the phrase under my name.


Not very many firefighters or policemen have to cross into another country to do their job.
I don't even notice your name, why would I notice the phrase under it?


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

where I want to said:


> War is mostly not a choice one government can make.


Call me cynical, but I truly believe that most wars have more to do with profit than right or wrong. And this coming one will be no different. Isis, smisis.... It has nothing to do with anything more than cold hard cash for big business.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

When my neighbors field caught fire 8 years ago I sent two tractors with discs and our bulldozer to turn under enough of my hay on the back of my hay field to provide an adequate fire break on my property as the forestry dept and VFDs fought the blaze on his property. Ironically as my hands cut my field break wide enough, the forestry guys took the opportunity to start a back fire on his already burning field and had some of the VFD shower shield my field in the break. He lost 30 acres of hay and I sacrificed only about 2 acres worth. :shrug:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Really? So British resent and hate the US because we beat them in war? How about Canada? Germany? Japan? Spain? Italy? Unless you can say yes to all of those your statement is false and your logic is flawed.


Every war, ever, left hatred on both sides. My statement and my opinion stands.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

HDRider said:


> They kill one of ours (American, English, Japaneses, French, etc.) - We kill 1,000 of theirs.
> 
> Our killing methods can take any form. Special forces, assassinations, air strikes, sponsoring Arab coalition ground forces. Whatever it takes.
> 
> ...


 ...........The current Iraqi leaders are partnering with religious factions to defeat ISIS , which , previously were deemed Enemies of Iraq when the US was conducting it's ground war ! The Iraqi Army is so ill trained and it's officer core is so corrupt that it will never defeat ISIS Regardless of how many US military advisors we send over there and how much US equipment we furnish them . , fordy:facepalm:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We invade other countries because it just so darned profitable. And yes, there's enough money in it for some that it's worth killing for. Worth it to them, anyway...


Another simplistic idea chosen to make it appear that people actually can and should chose to unilaterally end war. It takes two to war but only one to start it. And choices, even if effective, are rarely clear to anyone without tunnel vision. 
The voice condemning those who 'allow' war are so often the same voice that pops up to condemn people for their bias in not doing something to save others.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

watcher said:


> So if your neighbor's field was on fire and the wind was blowing toward your place you'd sit back and say let him fight his own fire?
> 
> I MUCH rather fight wars before 1) they get really big and 2) on someone else's soil.


I could agree with this if they were payed for immediately. Not put on a credit card.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Every war, ever, left hatred on both sides. My statement and my opinion stands.


Way to stand your ground. Never let facts get in the way of righteous indignation no matter how obviously wrong you are. :thumb:

So let's see... The US/Canadian border is the longest undefended border, I believe in both time and distance. We have highly integrated economies and enjoy much cross border tourism. There is only one American I've ever heard insult Canadians as a whole and that was some pot stirrer in HT. But Americans can't forget getting our collective rears repeatedly handed to us by the Canucks in the War of 1812. Or maybe we can forget, as I would bet most people have no idea we invaded Canada several times. 

By your statement and opinion the resentment is just waiting to boil over into...what? Americans will make fun of the Canadian "eh"? A Canadian Mounty will give a speeding ticket to a Yankee tourist? 

And howsabout the Brit/US "Special Relationship"? From Wiki, _"The Special Relationship is a phrase used to describe the exceptionally close political, diplomatic, cultural, economic, military and historical relations between the United Kingdom and the United States, and to a lesser extent, Canada, following its use in a 1946 speech by British statesman Winston Churchill. Although both the United Kingdom and United States have close relationships with many other nations, the level of cooperation between them in economic activity, trade and commerce, military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers.allies."_

Where is all the US/Brit hate? You might recall there was some sort of dust up between the two countries. Is the US just biding its time waiting to capture the Isle of Man as revenge for the the Brits torching the White House?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Way to stand your ground. Never let facts get in the way of righteous indignation no matter how obviously wrong you are. :thumb:
> 
> So let's see... The US/Canadian border is the longest undefended border, I believe in both time and distance. We have highly integrated economies and enjoy much cross border tourism. There is only one American I've ever heard insult Canadians as a whole and that was some pot stirrer in HT. But Americans can't forget getting our collective rears repeatedly handed to us by the Canucks in the War of 1812. Or maybe we can forget, as I would bet most people have no idea we invaded Canada several times.
> 
> ...


Thank-you for a post that had me rolling on the floor in laughter. Great way to start the morning. I am amazed that anyone could get all that from me saying a few simple sentences.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

*War is Not the Answer

*Looking back at the title I used, I wasn't very clear. What I meant is war is not the entire answer. For example, in WWII we defeated the Axis powers, but just as importantly we replaced Nazism with capitalism and in Japan we limited the role of the emperor and wrote a new constitution.

Simply defeating ISIS militarily will not solve the problem. Something better has to be put in its place.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

pancho said:


> There is a lot of difference in a fire and a war. Only a person who has not experienced either would mix them up.


Or maybe Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Thank-you for a post that had me rolling on the floor in laughter. Great way to start the morning. I am amazed that anyone could get all that from me saying a few simple sentences.


Yeah, either that or you could admit that the trite "Every war, ever, left hatred on both sides. My statement and my opinion stands," and, "Every single war. It might solve the situation at the very point in time but it leaves resentment and hatred on both sides that always bubbles up in the end," are not true. 

It's like saying "war is not the answer." It sounds good but sometimes, war is the exact answer required. Total, overwhelming, horrific, brutal violence is sometimes the only answer.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Yeah, either that or you could admit that the trite "Every war, ever, left hatred on both sides. My statement and my opinion stands," and, "Every single war. It might solve the situation at the very point in time but it leaves resentment and hatred on both sides that always bubbles up in the end," are not true.
> 
> It's like saying "war is not the answer." It sounds good but sometimes, war is the exact answer required. Total, overwhelming, horrific, brutal violence is sometimes the only answer.


No, I disagree. I stand by my opinion. Nothing you stated makes me believe anything different.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> *War is Not the Answer
> 
> *Looking back at the title I used, I wasn't very clear. What I meant is war is not the entire answer. For example, in WWII we defeated the Axis powers, but just as importantly we replaced Nazism with capitalism and in Japan we limited the role of the emperor and wrote a new constitution.
> 
> Simply defeating ISIS militarily will not solve the problem. Something better has to be put in its place.


Agreed, but the people have to want it, demand, it and work for it to be better. We ought to know by now that democracy can not be given by us or forced by us. If the people of the mid east choose to have dictators, Kings, and religious tyrants as their rulers, they are almost always going to be behind in economic development, freedom, and power. Where it not for oil money, they would have nothing but sand to show for their centuries of tyranny. 

So where does that leave the western world? We can't make the people choose our way and their way leaves them lacking. We can't leave them alone because they won't leave us or Israel alone. I don't have an answer except that we will be killing terrorists for a long time.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> No, I disagree. I stand by my opinion. Nothing you stated makes me believe anything different.


Why am I not surprised? Liberals rarely let facts deter them from a feel good opinion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wlover said:


> Thank-you for a post that had me rolling on the floor in laughter. Great way to start the morning. I am amazed that anyone could get all that from me saying a few simple sentences.


I agree. I get absolutely nothing from your posts regardless of how many words you use.

I like establishing common ground.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

pancho said:


> Why should our sons and daughters be killed for the people in other countries?
> Would you give your child's life for a person in another country that you have never seen, don't know, or will ever see?


The usual lefty claptrap. You fight in other countries so you don't have to fight in your own. Only a moron brings battle to his own shores when you can do it elsewhere. The truth is that everyone with half a brain already knows this but the left relies on counterfeit arguments that they know are completely bogus just to conceal their animosity toward a country that they despise and don't want project power in any way. Not one of these lefty 'anti-war' people ever condemns Marxist expansionism, or Islamic expansionism in any way. Very telling.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Agreed, but the people have to want it, demand, it and work for it to be better. We ought to know by now that democracy can not be given by us or forced by us. If the people of the mid east choose to have dictators, Kings, and religious tyrants as their rulers, they are almost always going to be behind in economic development, freedom, and power. Where it not for oil money, they would have nothing but sand to show for their centuries of tyranny.
> 
> So where does that leave the western world? We can't make the people choose our way and their way leaves them lacking. We can't leave them alone because they won't leave us or Israel alone. I don't have an answer except that we will be killing terrorists for a long time.


Maybe we can encourage the Saudis and Egyptians to reform Islam. I don't care what kind of government ME and N African countries have as long as they eliminate radical Islam.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Maybe we can encourage the Saudis and Egyptians to reform Islam. I don't care what kind of government ME and N African countries have as long as they eliminate radical Islam.


I seriously doubt the Saudis will reform, they made their deal with the Devil (Mullahs) long ago to assure non-interference in their reign. The Egyptians on the other hand might in fact put some serious hurt on ISIS.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Glade Runner said:


> The usual lefty claptrap. You fight in other countries so you don't have to fight in your own. Only a moron brings battle to his own shores when you can do it elsewhere. The truth is that everyone with half a brain already knows this but the left relies on counterfeit arguments that they know are completely bogus just to conceal their animosity toward a country that they despise and don't want project power in any way. Not one of these lefty 'anti-war' people ever condemns Marxist expansionism, or Islamic expansionism in any way. Very telling.


Why do people think everyone is as fascinated by a political party as they are? I don't belong to any political party, really think they should be banned. Of course if we did that some people would not have anyone to blame for their failings.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Maybe we can encourage the Saudis and Egyptians to reform Islam. I don't care what kind of government ME and N African countries have as long as they eliminate radical Islam.


But many people here in the U.S. seems to think all countries have to do things our way or we will invade them.
Some how they know leaving them alone and staying out of their business will never even when it has never been tried.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

pancho said:


> Why do people think everyone is as fascinated by a political party as they are? I don't belong to any political party, really think they should be banned. Of course if we did that some people would not have anyone to blame for their failings.


They don't like you thinking for yourself. They want to pigeon hole you. It makes it easier to use put downs as a way to try to win an argument.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wlover said:


> They don't like you thinking for yourself. They want to pigeon hole you. It makes it easier to use put downs as a way to try to win an argument.


I agree. A political party is so special to them that they do not know how to feel about a person who thinks for themselves. A party member is not allowed to think, just obey.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

pancho said:


> Why do people think everyone is as fascinated by a political party as they are? I don't belong to any political party, really think they should be banned. Of course if we did that some people would not have anyone to blame for their failings.


You can pretend your not a leftist all you want, very typical lefty tactic. Your posts demonstrate otherwise, time after time. Out of the hearts abundance, the mouth speaks.

And as far as thinking for yourself goes, that's hysterical. You repeat the screed almost verbatim.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> Why do people think everyone is as fascinated by a political party as they are? I don't belong to any political party, really think they should be banned. Of course if we did that some people would not have anyone to blame for their failings.


We stayed out of WWI until German u-boats starting sinking American ships.

We stayed out of WWII until Japan attacked Pearl harbor.

I'm sure there are many other examples.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> We stayed out of WWI until German u-boats starting sinking American ships.
> 
> We stayed out of WWII until Japan attacked Pearl harbor.
> 
> I'm sure there are many other examples.


Reread your history in neither case was the US blameless.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Glade Runner said:


> You can pretend your not a leftist all you want, very typical lefty tactic. Your posts demonstrate otherwise, time after time. Out of the hearts abundance, the mouth speaks.
> 
> And as far as thinking for yourself goes, that's hysterical. You repeat the screed almost verbatim.


You seem to know quite about about them.
Are you real sure you are not one?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> We stayed out of WWI until German u-boats starting sinking American ships.
> 
> We stayed out of WWII until Japan attacked Pearl harbor.
> 
> I'm sure there are many other examples.


We should have continued with what was working.
There was a reason to go in and plan to win.
Notice since then we don't have a plan, go in for financial reasons, arm our enemies, and never leave.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> There is a lot of difference in a fire and a war. Only a person who has not experienced either would mix them up.


Hum. . . try thinking a little less literally and you might get the point. Ignoring an approaching danger may keep you safe for a little while but in the end its going to cost you.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> Hum. . . try thinking a little less literally and you might get the point. Ignoring an approaching danger may keep you safe for a little while but in the end its going to cost you.


But a person should have some idea if there is approaching danger or just hot air. Each should be handled different.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Not very many firefighters or policemen have to cross into another country to do their job.


Nice deflection and avoidance of the question. Care to take the time and answer it now? Would you or would you not want your child to be a police office or firefighter because they would be placing their lives in danger to protect people you don't know?




pancho said:


> I don't even notice your name, why would I notice the phrase under it?


Because I pointed it out and you have some curiosity?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is also a good idea not to start a fire on your neighbors property hoping it will blow away from you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Every war, ever, left hatred on both sides. My statement and my opinion stands.


So you answer is that the UK, Germany, et al all hate the US. They do have a funny way of showing it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> So you answer is that the UK, Germany, et al all hate the US. They do have a funny way of showing it.


I am always amazed when people tell me I said something I never said.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> I could agree with this if they were payed for immediately. Not put on a credit card.


I doubt that since they were fought with rocks and spears there's hasn't been a war in history which has been fought w/o debit. You shouldn't look at a balance sheet before you make a stand. Should the US looked at how much it might cost and decide since they couldn't pay for it immediately it should just stay out of the war in Europe in the 40s?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> Nice deflection and avoidance of the question. Care to take the time and answer it now? Would you or would you not want your child to be a police office or firefighter because they would be placing their lives in danger to protect people you don't know?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I don't have a child and let other people raise their children as they would like.

I am really not that curious. I never look at the name of the person when I answer a post. That would be cheating.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I doubt that since they were fought with rocks and spears there's hasn't been a war in history which has been fought w/o debit. You shouldn't look at a balance sheet before you make a stand. Should the US looked at how much it might cost and decide since they couldn't pay for it immediately it should just stay out of the war in Europe in the 40s?


WWII-Rationing, scrap metal drives, war bonds, mutual sacrifice.

Iraq & Afghanistan-tax cuts and easy consumer credit. Sacrifice by those who fought.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Why do people think everyone is as fascinated by a political party as they are? I don't belong to any political party, really think they should be banned. Of course if we did that some people would not have anyone to blame for their failings.


I don't know why are you? Seeing as how YOU are the one who brought up political parties you should know the answer. Liberal and conservative are not political parties, they are ways of thinking.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> I don't know why are you? Seeing as how YOU are the one who brought up political parties you should know the answer. Liberal and conservative are not political parties, they are ways of thinking.


I look at political parties, liberals and conservative simply as tools used by politicians to keep the weak minded busy while they steal from them.
Seems to work.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

watcher said:


> I doubt that since they were fought with rocks and spears there's hasn't been a war in history which has been fought w/o debit. You shouldn't look at a balance sheet before you make a stand. Should the US looked at how much it might cost and decide since they couldn't pay for it immediately it should just stay out of the war in Europe in the 40s?


Our founding fathers mentioned something about getting entangled in foreign affairs. Or some such nonsense. $18 Trillion+ in the red last time I checked the balance sheet.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> But a person should have some idea if there is approaching danger or just hot air. Each should be handled different.


True but thinking if not biting a vicious dog will keep him from biting you is foolish. Thinking that if the US just says out of this or that area/problem will keep us safe is just as foolish. And that's just what I see more and more people saying. . ."If we just don't bother them they won't bother us."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> It is also a good idea not to start a fire on your neighbors property hoping it will blow away from you.


But there are times when that's the proper action. Firefighters set fires to contain fires all the time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> I am always amazed when people tell me I said something I never said.


If you refuse to directly answer a question I have to infer what you meant by the words you used. You didn't answer my question and restated that war cause hate therefore it was the logical conclusion. 

I gave you a chance to rebut it but seeing as how you again failed to answer the question nor rebut my statement, only try to deflect, I must again assume what you are implied was correct. That is you think the UK, Japan, et al all hate the US because we have fought wars with them.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Glade Runner said:


> The usual lefty claptrap. You fight in other countries so you don't have to fight in your own. Only a moron brings battle to his own shores when you can do it elsewhere. The truth is that everyone with half a brain already knows this but the left relies on counterfeit arguments that they know are completely bogus just to conceal their animosity toward a country that they despise and don't want project power in any way. Not one of these lefty 'anti-war' people ever condemns Marxist expansionism, or Islamic expansionism in any way. Very telling.


You're a hoot and getting a bit paranoid. No one who has posted so far on this thread is supporting Marxism or Islamic expansionism.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> True but thinking if not biting a vicious dog will keep him from biting you is foolish. Thinking that if the US just says out of this or that area/problem will keep us safe is just as foolish. And that's just what I see more and more people saying. . ."If we just don't bother them they won't bother us."


How do we know that?
We haven't ever tried it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> But there are times when that's the proper action. Firefighters set fires to contain fires all the time.


Some set fires just because they like to see things burn.
Some set fires so they can be seen as a hero for fighting it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> If you refuse to directly answer a question I have to infer what you meant by the words you used. You didn't answer my question and restated that war cause hate therefore it was the logical conclusion.
> 
> I gave you a chance to rebut it but seeing as how you again failed to answer the question nor rebut my statement, only try to deflect, I must again assume what you are implied was correct. That is you think the UK, Japan, et al all hate the US because we have fought wars with them.



The hatred that is left was a perfectly good reason to explain why wars never solve the problem. You are free not to have the same opinion. Inferring that I meant the hatred that is left directly after the war and the next few generations goes on for ever between the countries is reaching( though it does happen ). Using that to tell me my opinion is wrong does not cut it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> That is you think the UK, Japan, et al all hate the US because we have fought wars with them.


No, that couldn't be. They appreciate how we have helped to destroy homes, kill their citizens, and cost them millions$.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

pancho said:


> Some set fires just because they like to see things burn.
> Some set fires so they can be seen as a hero for fighting it.


I agree. Some also set fires so they can make money. That remind you of anyone?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

What Washington actually said-

"Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."

And-
"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it........ "




bowdonkey said:


> Our founding fathers mentioned something about getting entangled in foreign affairs. Or some such nonsense. $18 Trillion+ last time I checked the balance sheet.


Not quite the same definition.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

pancho said:


> But many people here in the U.S. seems to think all countries have to do things our way or we will invade them.
> Some how they know leaving them alone and staying out of their business will never even when it has never been tried.


I guess that means Thailand or maybe S Korea is next.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

pancho said:


> I look at political parties, liberals and conservative simply as tools used by politicians to keep the weak minded busy while they steal from them.
> Seems to work.


Being the mental giant that you purport yourself to be, why don't you fix it? 

Name one republic, or democracy that does not have political parties. It is human nature to form alliances and they take the form of political parties.

It amazes me when you spout these things and you have no evidence of what is better.

I wish a lot of things, but you seem to live if the world of wishes.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

pancho said:


> Why do people think everyone is as fascinated by a political party as they are? I don't belong to any political party, really think they should be banned. Of course if we did that some people would not have anyone to blame for their failings.


Did I miss a reference to your political party? Why did you bring up political parties?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Maybe we can encourage the Saudis and Egyptians to reform Islam. I don't care what kind of government ME and N African countries have as long as they eliminate radical Islam.


Well I don't really care what type of gov't they have either, but if Obama is half right (a blind squirrel moment) in that the politics of envy are a force in creating terrorism, then we can't hope for things to get better with the gov'ts they have now. The ME has been a basket case for centuries and I don't see it getting better.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> I am always amazed when people tell me I said something I never said.


I'm always amazed when people can't follow the logical next step of their own statements.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> The hatred that is left was a perfectly good reason to explain why wars never solve the problem. You are free not to have the same opinion. Inferring that I meant the hatred that is left directly after the war and the next few generations goes on for ever between the countries is reaching( though it does happen ). Using that to tell me my opinion is wrong does not cut it.


Not so fast. You also said, "hatred on both sides that always bubbles up in the end." So we are still waiting for Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan hatred to bubble up. Do we understand you correctly? 

But let's take your statement as a given; there is hatred left after a war. I can certainly believe there are those with hate in their hearts after a war. Please explain why that means the problem is not solved. Western Europe has had more peace since WW2's end than it has in centuries. Destroying Japan brought freedom and an end to subjugation and torture to millions of enslaved people. How was the problem not solved? 

If I add 2+2 and get 4, is the problem not solved if I hate the teacher? 

You may LOL now as you refuse to answer the questions.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Being the mental giant that you purport yourself to be, why don't you fix it?
> 
> Name one republic, or democracy that does not have political parties. It is human nature to form alliances and they take the form of political parties.
> 
> ...


It is time we tried some other way. What we have now is not working.
I live in a different world. Not a lot of people are allowed to join me.
Politicians and those who support them are banned.

People who believe in political parties remind me of those who join a riot. They have a few leaders that have their own interest in mind followed by those who need someone to tell them what to do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Not so fast. You also said, "hatred on both sides that always bubbles up in the end." So we are still waiting for Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan hatred to bubble up. Do we understand you correctly?
> 
> But let's take your statement as a given; there is hatred left after a war. I can certainly believe there are those with hate in their hearts after a war. Please explain why that means the problem is not solved. Western Europe has had more peace since WW2's end than it has in centuries. Destroying Japan brought freedom and an end to subjugation and torture to millions of enslaved people. How was the problem not solved?
> 
> ...


Japan started the war, what did it solve for them?

Hilter started his war, what did it solve for him?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Japan started the war, what did it solve for them?
> 
> Hilter started his war, what did it solve for him?


We gave them billions of dollars to get them going again. We gave them technology to start up new businesses and taught them how to compete in a global market place. How have they been doing since? How have we been doing?

Japan didn't start "the war", they joined in when they thought our Pacific Fleet was weak. I thought history was taught in public schools!!!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Thank-you for a post that had me rolling on the floor in laughter. Great way to start the morning. I am amazed that anyone could get all that from me saying a few simple sentences.


Your very clear!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> We gave them billions of dollars to get them going again. We gave them technology to start up new businesses and taught them how to compete in a global market place. How have they been doing since? How have we been doing?
> 
> Japan didn't start "the war", they joined in when they thought our Pacific Fleet was weak. I thought history was taught in public schools!!!


Japan did start the War on the US. They solved nothing by doing that.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Japan didn't start "the war", they joined in when they thought our Pacific Fleet was weak. I thought history was taught in public schools!!!


It is, did you attend?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> We gave them billions of dollars to get them going again. We gave them technology to start up new businesses and taught them how to compete in a global market place. How have they been doing since? How have we been doing?
> 
> Japan didn't start "the war", they joined in when they thought our Pacific Fleet was weak. I thought history was taught in public schools!!!


Reread your history leading up to WWII, They pushed, we responded, and they responded with what they hoped was a debilitating attack.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

America was already a participant in ww2 in Europe before we were "formally" declared war upon. Look up the "Lend lease act". We also had already established bases with our troops in Iceland to replace British troops. We had also sent p-40's to China before these formal declarations to help the Chinese defend the Burma Road. The group we sent was called The Flying Tigers. Formal declarations are meaningless, as the Japanese proved in the "14 part letter".

Who declared what first is really irrelevant!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Embargo's and words are not war.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Embargo's and words are not war.


Troops, supplies, aircraft with pilots being sent to other countries to fight is called....what?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Troops, supplies, aircraft with pilots being sent to other countries to fight is called....what?


Flying tigers first trained in Burma but did not fly combat missions until after Pearl Harbour.

We have have troups, supplies etc. in several countries but have not been at war.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Some set fires just because they like to see things burn.
> Some set fires so they can be seen as a hero for fighting it.


And because of that fire isn't the answer and we should stop anyone we see setting a fire?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> The hatred that is left was a perfectly good reason to explain why wars never solve the problem. You are free not to have the same opinion. Inferring that I meant the hatred that is left directly after the war and the next few generations goes on for ever between the countries is reaching( though it does happen ). Using that to tell me my opinion is wrong does not cut it.


So war didn't solve the problem of the crown unfair treatment of the people in the Americas? War didn't stop Japan from killing and enslaving millions more Chinese, Koreans? War didn't stop the Nazi's take over of Europe and end their version of 'ethnic cleansing'? 

And if you ask anyone old enough to have lived through WWII and ask them how the Japanese, Germans and Italians "hated" Americans even a few years after the war. I think you'll discover your opinion doesn't fit with facts. 

Were there some individuals? Sure just as there are some who hate people who have done nothing but be born the 'wrong' color or follow the 'wrong' religion. But over all relations between the winners and losers was very good. Now the relations between the winners after the victory is a different story.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Flying tigers first trained in Burma but did not fly combat missions until after Pearl Harbour.
> 
> We have have troups, supplies etc. in several countries but have not been at war.


Had to go look it up, uh?

I'm not talking about currently, I'm talking about before the start of ww2!

What country are you from?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> No, that couldn't be. They appreciate how we have helped to destroy homes, kill their citizens, and cost them millions$.


And following the "no worse enemy, no better friend" philosophy after doing that we spent billions to help them rebuild as well as providing protection from the USSR which allowed them to not only live in safety but not have to spend billions of dollars of their own money on their armed forces.

Again I suggest you do some research and use FACTS to form your opinions. You can say in your opinion the moon is made of green cheese but seeing as how the facts show it is not your opinion isn't really worth much.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Japan started the war, what did it solve for them?
> 
> Hilter started his war, what did it solve for him?


Think just a little more. War was not the answer for Japan and Germany and Italy. But as I recall, there was another party involved in WW2. Some members of that party were drawn into the war totally against their will. They did everything they knew to avoid getting into that war, but the war came to the Allies. And for the Allies, war was very much the answer. Total, virtually unrestricted, deadly, destructive, costly, bloody, merciless war the answer to create a lasting peace. 

The peace won't last forever because of human nature, but this is about the best western Europe has done for centuries.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Well I don't really care what type of gov't they have either, but if Obama is half right (a blind squirrel moment) in that the politics of envy are a force in creating terrorism, then we can't hope for things to get better with the gov'ts they have now. The ME has been a basket case for centuries and I don't see it getting better.


I'm still touting the same action I did in the 80s. There's no need to send troops into the middle east to make the US safer. All we need to do is sell obsolete and low tech weapons to BOTH sides and let them keep killing each other. If two dogs are fighting each other neither of them is going to bite you. IMO, if we had done that with Iran and Iraq in the 80 the vast majority of the problems we are having now would not exist.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Had to go look it up, uh?
> 
> I'm not talking about currently, I'm talking about before the start of ww2!
> 
> What country are you from?


Same thing they were there training and waiting, not at war.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Japan started the war, what did it solve for them?
> 
> Hilter started his war, what did it solve for him?


First off you have to win.

Second, the solved problem for them was having to live under tyrannical governments with very little freedom. Especially if you were in the 'wrong' group. Want to talk about generational residual hate after a war? Talk to a Korean about the Japanese or better yet call a Korean Japanese.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> First off you have to win.
> 
> Second, the solved problem for them was having to live under tyrannical governments with very little freedom. Especially if you were in the 'wrong' group. Want to talk about generational residual hate after a war? Talk to a Korean about the Japanese or better yet call a Korean Japanese.


So you agree with me, nice to know.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

watcher said:


> So the US fighting in Europe in the 40s wasn't "needed"? I don't remember Germany attacking the US before we went to war against them.


 We tried staying out until we was attacked by Japan. Yes the way Germany was going we would have been fighting them here.

What is Bad we are not allowed to fight and be just as crewel as the enemy. When I served we blocked supplies going into North Viet Nam, I thought good we will put an end to this. Then we was told we couldn't do this :hair 

big rockpile


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Maybe it's time to examine the title of this thread - "War Is Not The Answer". If the questions is how does a nation protect itself and it's citizens while an enemy is attacking it, or threatening to attack it, violent confrontation - war - is the only answer.

Unfortunately, our politically correct abhorrence of total war has, and will, cost thousands of American lives in efforts "contain" and "diminish the abilities" of those who would destroy us as a civilization given the chance.

I'm not a warmonger, but I do believe in quickly destroying avowed enemies bent on our destruction. Quickly, as opposed to a half-fast effort.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Forget that


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Maybe it's time to examine the title of this thread - "War Is Not The Answer". If the questions is how does a nation protect itself and it's citizens while an enemy is attacking it, or threatening to attack it, violent confrontation - war - is the only answer.
> 
> Unfortunately, our politically correct abhorrence of total war has, and will, cost thousands of American lives in efforts "contain" and "diminish the abilities" of those who would destroy us as a civilization given the chance.
> 
> I'm not a warmonger, but I do believe in quickly destroying avowed enemies bent on our destruction. Quickly, as opposed to a half-fast effort.


How many times have we fought wars against the British, the Germans, the Iraqis, etc? How many times has Israel fought a war against Arab countries?

My point was that war is rarely a complete solution.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting thread. 

IMHO there are no complete solutions when dealing with human interactions. I don't see how the diversity that is this world can be lumped into any one solution. If you search for complete solutions you will probably spend a lot of time frustrated and disappointed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> How many times have we fought wars against the British, the Germans, the Iraqis, etc? How many times has Israel fought a war against Arab countries?
> 
> My point was that war is rarely a complete solution.


Define a "complete solution." We fought two wars against the British, if you count the revolution, and we don't operate either a parlimentary government nor are part of the Commonwealth. Then we fought two wars against the German because , I think in the first case, Germany started sinking all commercial shipping to Britain and it included sinking our ships, and tried to form a military alliance with Mexico. Then, in WWII, Japan, an ally of Germany, bombed Hawaii, and we declared war on Japan and, due to their alliance, that meant open warfare with Germany. Japan is no longer bombing US territory and German is no longer trying to militarily occupy other European countries.
So what other objective was left to make it a complete solution?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Define a "complete solution." We fought two wars against the British, if you count the revolution, and we don't operate either a parlimentary government nor are part of the Commonwealth. Then we fought two wars against the German because , I think in the first case, Germany started sinking all commercial shipping to Britain and it included sinking our ships, and tried to form a military alliance with Mexico. Then, in WWII, Japan, an ally of Germany, bombed Hawaii, and we declared war on Japan and, due to their alliance, that meant open warfare with Germany. Japan is no longer bombing US territory and German is no longer trying to militarily occupy other European countries.
> So what other objective was left to make it a complete solution?


As I posted earlier, we imposed our will on Germany and Japan after WWII. We wrote Japan's constitution and took powers away from the emperor. We banned Nazism and put capitalism in. We also gave up eastern Europe. 

That is the other objective. 

You break it, you own it. Whatever is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at least partially, a result of us breaking it. 

It seems we have diplomats that try to avoid war.
We have a military to fight wars.
But who do we have to manage the results of war?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> As I posted earlier, we imposed our will on Germany and Japan after WWII. We wrote Japan's constitution and took powers away from the emperor. We banned Nazism and put capitalism in. We also gave up eastern Europe.
> 
> That is the other objective.
> 
> ...




I think you've answered your own question, whether you realize it or not.

If you want a perfect and complete solution, you won't find that on Earth, nothing done by humans is perfect nor complete.
So stop looking in the wrong places and ask your questions to the One who has the perfect answers.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

no really said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> IMHO there are no complete solutions when dealing with human interactions. I don't see how the diversity that is this world can be lumped into any one solution. If you search for complete solutions you will probably spend a lot of time frustrated and disappointed.


I agree that there is no single solution and I often wonder if the problem of ISIS will be better resolved by the Arab countries.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> As I posted earlier, we imposed our will on Germany and Japan after WWII. We wrote Japan's constitution and took powers away from the emperor. We banned Nazism and put capitalism in. We also gave up eastern Europe.
> 
> That is the other objective.
> 
> ...


The problem starts with the goal- we did not break either Iraq or Afghanistan. Bent them a bit but both countries have for millennia have had wars passing through, over and in them. That is their heritage. They both had an opportunity to take a more peaceful road while we were there but the idea that they would was our delusion, not their's.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I think you've answered your own question, whether you realize it or not.
> 
> If you want a perfect and complete solution, you won't find that on Earth, nothing done by humans is perfect nor complete.
> So stop looking in the wrong places and ask your questions to the One who has the perfect answers.


Why bother having a forum to discuss and and ask questions then? Just ask the one everything you need to know. Don't bother to think for yourself or try to make this a better world because the one will tell you.

Do you know how patronizing that post is?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Wlover said:


> Why bother having a forum to discuss and and ask questions then? Just ask the one everything you need to know. Don't bother to think for yourself or try to make this a better world because the one will tell you.
> 
> Do you know how patronizing that post is?


Yes I do.
I also know who my own "patron" is, derived from the Latin for "father".
But you are mistaken on the part about not trying to make this a better world, that is exactly the reason to start with the perfect solution, rather than trying everything else first.


patron (n.) 
"a lord-master, a protector," c.1300, from Old French patron "patron, protector, patron saint" (12c.) and directly from Medieval Latin patronus "patron saint, bestower of a benefice, lord, master, model, pattern," *from Latin patronus "defender, protector, former master (of a freed slave); advocate," from pater (genitive patris) "father" (see father (n.)). *


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I agree that there is no single solution and I often wonder if the problem of ISIS will be better resolved by the Arab countries.


Which will only take place at the point the jihadists frighten them rather than just non-muslims. And will not stop their rampages against non-muslim peoples in their way. And I doubt whether 'democratic' systems in the western sense will result.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Which will only take place at the point the jihadists frighten them rather than just non-muslims. And will not stop their rampages against non-muslim peoples in their way. And I doubt whether 'democratic' systems in the western sense will result.


They seem to be working on eliminating ISIS so there may not be many left to rampage and the US could concentrate on domestic terror cells.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> And because of that fire isn't the answer and we should stop anyone we see setting a fire?


You missed the important part.
We need someone with intelligence setting the fire who knows if a fire is really needed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes I do.
> I also know who my own "patron" is, derived from the Latin for "father".
> But you are mistaken on the part about not trying to make this a better world, that is exactly the reason to start with the perfect solution, rather than trying everything else first.


Well, have you asked and got the answer? Why would millions of people have not asked all ready? I think that someone is not willing to share the answer and you might be on your own.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> And following the "no worse enemy, no better friend" philosophy after doing that we spent billions to help them rebuild as well as providing protection from the USSR which allowed them to not only live in safety but not have to spend billions of dollars of their own money on their armed forces.
> 
> Again I suggest you do some research and use FACTS to form your opinions. You can say in your opinion the moon is made of green cheese but seeing as how the facts show it is not your opinion isn't really worth much.


Can you explain how it is right for the U.S. taxpayers to pay billions to destroy our enemy then pay then billions to rebuild.
Some part of that seems like the taxpayers are on the loosing side both times.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

big rockpile said:


> We tried staying out until we was attacked by Japan. Yes the way Germany was going we would have been fighting them here.
> 
> What is Bad we are not allowed to fight and be just as crewel as the enemy. When I served we blocked supplies going into North Viet Nam, I thought good we will put an end to this. Then we was told we couldn't do this :hair
> 
> big rockpile


If we are forced into a war my opinion is we should be much more cruel than the enemy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> They seem to be working on eliminating ISIS so there may not be many left to rampage and the US could concentrate on domestic terror cells.


I agree except that the current administration, the American media and our post-FDR legal system insist- just insist- on no stereotyping, no deportation and no effective immigration limits. So no ending of internal threats is possible.
But then I think of those 200 kidnapped girls, the targeting of non-islamic groups and think that a huge block including most of Africa as an Islamic block is dangerous for the whole world. If non-islamic people are not defended or at least helped, they will stop trying to be other than Islamic because they see the rest of the world will not help them when they are being overwhelmed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Wlover said:


> Well, have you asked and got the answer? Why would millions of people have not asked all ready? I think that someone is not willing to share the answer and you might be on your own.



Certainly, I have asked and gotten the answer.
And you are right, millions of others have and still do.
But I am not the "heart knower", I can only speak for myself on those very personal issues. What I can tell you is He knows and can see when someone is truly asking in all sincerity, and when they are ready to receive His answer and ready to do it.
In some cases, I spent years asking, only to receive the answer when it was in perfect season.
Once again, you are asking an imperfect human to explain perfect answers to you.
I defer all questions to my Father..........

Unfortunately, like little children, we have already been given the answers, yet still do not listen.

Mark 13:23New King James Version (NKJV)

23 But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Certainly, I have asked and gotten the answer.
> And you are right, millions of others have and still do.
> But I am not the "heart knower", I can only speak for myself on those very personal issues. What I can tell you is He knows and can see when someone is truly asking in all sincerity, and when they are ready to receive His answer and ready to do it.
> In some cases, I spent years asking, only to receive the answer when it was in perfect season.
> ...


So instead of sharing that answer in a conversation you go on to continue to treat people like children and we just don't understand what we have been told.

What is the point of asking if we are imperfect humans incapable of getting it and actually doing something with it.

Don't bother to come back with the standard "someday you will understand" because that means we should just sit here in patiently waiting until we are worthy. That is not how humans work and sure not how I would want to work towards a better world.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> So you agree with me, nice to know.


Finding one example in history does not validate an opinion. If I give an example of where a person died in an auto accident BECAUSE they were wearing a seat belt would that validate the opinion of someone who thinks he's safer not wearing one? Or would the preponderance of facts discredit it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

big rockpile said:


> We tried staying out until we was attacked by Japan. Yes the way Germany was going we would have been fighting them here.
> 
> What is Bad we are not allowed to fight and be just as crewel as the enemy. When I served we blocked supplies going into North Viet Nam, I thought good we will put an end to this. Then we was told we couldn't do this :hair
> 
> big rockpile


You were seeing the close up view, it was worse when you could see the larger picture. We were not allowed to attack dams, power stations, rail yards nor any other of the major infrastructure in NV.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> How many times have we fought wars against the British, the Germans, the Iraqis, etc? How many times has Israel fought a war against Arab countries?
> 
> My point was that war is rarely a complete solution.


If you restate that I'd agree; PARTIAL war is rarely a complete solution.

Failure to completely destroy your enemy means you will most likely have to fight him again. As the quote I posted said:

_You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back._


And here's another one:

_War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him. But to make him do what you want him to do._


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> You missed the important part.
> We need someone with intelligence setting the fire who knows if a fire is really needed.


No, you need educated people who can tell the difference between someone setting a back fire and someone committing arson. You can't get that when you have more and more people screaming to the public about how fire is "bad" because fire kills people and fire destroys property. You wind up with people who see anyone who suggested starting any type of a fire as a "bad" person.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

where I want to said:


> The problem starts with the goal- we did not break either Iraq or Afghanistan. Bent them a bit but both countries have for millennia have had wars passing through, over and in them. That is their heritage.  They both had an opportunity to take a more peaceful road while we were there but the idea that they would was our delusion, not their's.


I totally agree. We've had a huge military presence in the ME since 91, and now look at the place. The state of the modern world for that matter. I have a cousin and a friend who both joined just before or after Desert Storm, and both have retired. Their entire military careers serving while we were embroiled in ME conflicts. One Navy and one Marine. They opened my eyes to the futility of it all. As an aside I'm a Vietnam Era Navy vet and now a Wildland Firefighter.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Can you explain how it is right for the U.S. taxpayers to pay billions to destroy our enemy then pay then billions to rebuild.
> Some part of that seems like the taxpayers are on the loosing side both times.


Because not spending that money you are placing the nation in danger. 

If you don't spend the billions to destroy them they will destroy you.

If you don't spend the billions to rebuild them the odds are once they are strong they will attack you again. WWII can be almost directly traced back to the failure of the victors in WWI not helping the losers to rebuild. And there are economic benefits.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> I totally agree. We've had a huge military presence in the ME since 91, and now look at the place. The state of the modern world for that matter. I have a cousin and a friend who both joined just before or after Desert Storm, and both have retired. Their entire military careers serving while we were embroiled in ME conflicts. One Navy and one Marine. They opened my eyes to the futility of it all.


This is what happens when you let politicians and political correctness control how you fight a war.

If we fought WWII this way we'd still be in combat in Germany.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Wlover said:


> So instead of sharing that answer in a conversation you go on to continue to treat people like children and we just don't understand what we have been told.


I'm sorry if you see me that way, but I get the feeling you have more than one question you seek the answer to, and I have less than an hour before I leave for work. I got a little promotion at work last week and am running 2nd shift as of today.
Our Father has eternal patience, likely the benefit of having been around forever, lol.
I also apologize for the child analogy, but quite frankly, it's the truth. Truth is one of the most difficult things we all have to face and accept. That doesn't mean that you remain a child, but seek wisdom and learn to grow, it's not as hopeless as you think.
The truth is, we HAVE been told over and over again.
The OP's question is thousands of years old, the answers from fellow humans are just as old, yet here we are in 2015 looking for a different answer from yet a different generation of the same human race.
What's that definition of insanity again?...........



Wlover said:


> What is the point of asking if we are imperfect humans incapable of getting it and actually doing something with it.
> 
> Don't bother to come back with the standard "someday you will understand" because that means we should just sit here in patiently waiting until we are worthy. That is not how humans work and sure not how I would want to work towards a better world.


I would never dream of coming back with that answer. It is that very reason that I ceased asking it from those who supposedly were more knowledgeable than I. To say simply, "I have no idea" gains far more respect from me than a BS session of canned answers from the seminary.

And I would never say that we are incapable of understanding and changing because I know better.
What I said was, you are seeking wisdom from the wrong source.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> This is what happens when you let politicians and political correctness control how you fight a war.


We sacrificed $1 trillion in treasure and 4500 US troop lives, and now you say they did it wrong?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> Because not spending that money you are placing the nation in danger.
> 
> If you don't spend the billions to destroy them they will destroy you.
> 
> If you don't spend the billions to rebuild them the odds are once they are strong they will attack you again. WWII can be almost directly traced back to the failure of the victors in WWI not helping the losers to rebuild. And there are economic benefits.


If there is a good reason for war you don't leave any of the enemy alive. If you try not to kill the enemy and then rebuild their country you did not have a good enough reason to go to war in the first place.

That is the problem. The U.S. does not have a good enough reason to go to war. Profit is the main reason. That is the reasons for all of the rules when there should be none.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Nevada said:


> We sacrificed $1 trillion in treasure and 4500 US troop lives, and now you say they did it wrong?


I wish there was a way of knowing for sure what's been spent. I've seen $1-4T figures. Seen a billboard along the Interstate going to the Twin Cities that said MN's share of the cost in Iraq alone was $42B. I know more about the lives lost, many from here, a couple were students my wife taught. The way I see it is get out, it's not being fought to win. Or if we stay, then go all out and start a Federal Excise tax and increase income tax to pay for it. Cut all welfare, SS, Medical programs. All of it. There's enough debt and unfunded mandates being passed on to the next generation. If more people had a dog in the fight, things would change.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> We sacrificed $1 trillion in treasure and 4500 US troop lives, and now you say they did it wrong?


Absolutely we did it wrong. You can argue from several different POVs that we should have never started or you can say that once Obama was handed relatively stable situations he botched the whole effort up probably beyond repair.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> The problem starts with the goal- we did not break either Iraq or Afghanistan. Bent them a bit but both countries have for millennia have had wars passing through, over and in them. That is their heritage. They both had an opportunity to take a more peaceful road while we were there but the idea that they would was our delusion, not their's.


That's exactly my point. A US military victory over ISIS will be a short term victory, at best, unless Islamic reform also takes place.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> That's exactly my point. A US military victory over ISIS will be a short term victory, at best, unless Islamic reform also takes place.


They know. I've told them dozens of times. They don't care, they just want war. I suspect it has more to do with a desire to kick some Muslim hiney than it has to do with realistically curbing terrorism.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> That's exactly my point. A US military victory over ISIS will be a short term victory, at best, unless Islamic reform also takes place.


On that narrow point, agreed. 

But in the broader view, we don't get to decide if ISIS wants to make war on us. We may have to kill a lot of people for a lot of years waiting on Islamic reform. Hopefully not, but there is only a glimmer of hope that Islam will reform from within. Jordon and Egypt are currently that glimmer. Will they be crushed from within like is happening in Syria or will the prevail? We can only guess.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> We stayed out of WWI until German u-boats starting sinking American ships.
> 
> We stayed out of WWII until Japan attacked Pearl harbor.
> 
> I'm sure there are many other examples.


If either counntry hadn't attack and we stayed out, of the fight, just because it was "the right thing to do" it would have been the stupidest mistake America could have ever done, IMO.

A much larger Third Reich, comprised of all of Europe and All of Russia, may have been pretty tough to beat later. They likely would have developed their own nuclear weapons.

An expanded Japanese empire, encompassing China, might be more than a handful too.

Sometime you just have to do what you think is right.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

War is a business. Always has been. 

There are very few wars for reasons other than that. Until folks come to understand that, we'll always have wars. The preceding pages of "they did this", or "we shoulda done that" show people simply don't get it....and the folks pulling the strings will continue to pull the strings. 

In centuries gone by, it was fairly simple: "You got it, and we want it". The guy on the other side of the sword (or pretty close by) was the one wanting, or defending "it". (whatever "it" was)

In the last few centuries, the businessmen have been have managed to make war from a distance, using brainwashed proxy armies inspired to fight for various BS reasons. And in the last 100 years or so, they've even managed to play both sides.....heads they win, tails they win. No matter which side prevails, business was the ultimate winner. 

What could be better from a business standpoint ?

Marine Corp General Smedley Butler said after WW1:

*War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. *

Hermann Goring came along a few years later with this jewel:

*&#8220;Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... [V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.&#8221; *

Don't know whether Hermann thought govts were actually the instigators of war, or if he understood they were also manipulated.....by the industrialists that were financing and profiting by war.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> That's exactly my point. A US military victory over ISIS will be a short term victory, at best, unless Islamic reform also takes place.


But leaving Islam alone will never bring about a desire to leave non-muslims in peace. Too many Islamic countries will happily fund and defend terrorism that leaves them untouched. Saudi Arabia is basically a theocracy with plenty of where withal to pay other disaffected Muslims off get rid of them, use as a tool against those they distrust or spread Islam, which an inherited source of power and income.
So if left alone, they will remain unmoved over the misery of others. There has to be a spreading of the pain of radicals before they will take action. The west can make sure that they feel that pain and stop giving them excuses they use but don't believe themselves.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

US bankers are desperately seeking opportunities to launch more wars in order to reflate the economy, which is in a deflationary cycle again, an American journalist and writer says.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/19/398212/US-seeks-wars-to-reflate-economy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TnAndy said:


> US bankers are desperately seeking opportunities to launch more wars in order to reflate the economy, which is in a deflationary cycle again, an American journalist and writer says.
> 
> http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/19/398212/US-seeks-wars-to-reflate-economy


There's no denying that war is good for the economy, but in the long run it creates a lot of debt. Interestingly, conservatives don't worry about war debt nearly as much as the worry about debt from social programs. I never understood why.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There's no denying that war is good for the economy, but in the long run it creates a lot of debt. Interestingly, conservatives don't worry about war debt nearly as much as the worry about debt from social programs. I never understood why.


It's really simple:

1...your not a conservative. 
2...Our military is mandated by our Constitution. 
3...The general welfare clause was never meant to be what it has become....a lifestyle.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We sacrificed $1 trillion in treasure and 4500 US troop lives, and now you say they did it wrong?


I've been saying we have been dealing with the entire region wrong since the late 70s. I've said many, many times the way to do it is to keep them fighting themselves by supporting both sides. 

As for what we have been doing there since 1990 I have been saying we are doing it from the very beginning. You don't give your enemy months to plan and build up defenses and you don't stop killing him because you are doing too good of a job at it. You don't sign a cease fire then stand around like you have caught your vital organ in the zipper in your fly while they ignore the terms.

I have pointed out again and again that the stupid "hearts and minds" idea failed in Vietnam and everywhere else it has been tried when dealing with a fanatical guerrilla/insurgent force. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds by putting in wells when your enemy is willing to disembowel anyone who does anything that might supports you.

Want to win there? You have to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. You have to have a strict policy of no better friend and no worse enemy. You have to make the people realize that supporting you is going to cause them less damage than supporting the enemy.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> There's no denying that war is good for the economy, but in the long run it creates a lot of debt. Interestingly, conservatives don't worry about war debt nearly as much as the worry about debt from social programs. I never understood why.


LOL! I am a conservative and I worry about debt from ALL sources of gov't spending, so you are wrong about that one. And you have based your assertion on a silly myth. War is undoubtedly bad for the economy except from a view of the costs of losing a war. Losing a war thrust upon the US, like WW2 could have been very costly, but all sides would have economically benefited if the war had never started. 

Your precious social programs of which you directly benefit are claimed to be good for the economy based on the same faulty reasoning that war is good for the economy. They both generate economic activity but the costs are misunderstood. Here's a link that will explain it to you better than I can. 

http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy.htm

_One of the more enduring myths in Western society is that wars are somehow good for the economy... This faulty belief stems from a misunderstanding of the economic way of thinking...The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call The Broken Window Fallacy ...The faulty logic of the Broken Window Fallacy occurs all the time with arguments supporting government programs. A politician will claim that his new government program to provide winter coats to poor families has been a roaring success, because he can point to all the people who have coats who didn't have them before. ... Of course, what we do not see is the school lunch proposal that was never implemented to implement the coat program, or the decline in economic activity from the added taxes needed to pay for the coats. _

another source disproving your myth: war-is-good-for-the-economy-myth

and another who attacks war is good business from the broken windows analogy: debunking-the-economic-myth-that-war-is-good-for-business


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> But leaving Islam alone will never bring about a desire to leave non-muslims in peace. Too many Islamic countries will happily fund and defend terrorism that leaves them untouched. Saudi Arabia is basically a theocracy with plenty of where withal to pay other disaffected Muslims off get rid of them, use as a tool against those they distrust or spread Islam, which an inherited source of power and income.
> So if left alone, they will remain unmoved over the misery of others. There has to be a spreading of the pain of radicals before they will take action. The west can make sure that they feel that pain and stop giving them excuses they use but don't believe themselves.


So how many more Muslims did we need to kill in Afghanistan and Iraq before they would "leave non-Muslims in peace", because according to that logic, we must not have killed enough.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

TnAndy has it right. Maybe if we institute a war tax of 50% on any income over 100 grand things would change. Gotta have a dog in the fight to make any changes.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

bowdonkey said:


> TnAndy has it right. Maybe if we institute a war tax of 50% on any income over 100 grand things would change. Gotta have a dog in the fight to make any changes.


WAY WRONG TWICE!!!

1. With a war tax, the gov't has an incentive to keep wars going so the tax money doesn't stop rolling in. And by the rule of follow-the-money, you know politicians will do what it take to keep getting the people's money

2. And why tax higher incomes only? If you are trying to make the people feel the pain, then everyone should be paying.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> So how many more Muslims did we need to kill in Afghanistan and Iraq before they would "leave non-Muslims in peace", because according to that logic, we must not have killed enough.


What a nasty, untrue, bitter distortion that is just to counter at argument. The killing is being done already by ISIS and people like them and being allowed by their supporters, and those who have had the delusion that it can't touch them personally, so they had no need to act.
What I actually said was that Muslims apparently were not going to act for the sake of preventing atrocities to others, only when the ugliness turns against them personally. Which seems to be a common failing-that blyth and safe platitudes of comiseration are enough but no risk as long as only others pay the price.
It is unfortunate that Muslims allow such evil to be cultivated inside their control. So until the infection has spread to them personally, they have done nothing. And until they were dragged into the frey so that this snake would turn on them too, they were going to continue to do nothing. 
Look at the difference the burning of the Muslim Jordanian pilot made. Since that horror was directed at themselves instead of just other religions, they now took action. If they had taken such action a long time before, when only non Muslims were targeted, there would have been no ISIS to bite anyone.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> TnAndy has it right. Maybe if we institute a war tax of 50% on any income over 100 grand things would change. Gotta have a dog in the fight to make any changes.


If only it were that simple. That some small group of malicious malefactors are exercising control of the innocent, defenseless masses. The masses are quite willing to abuse whoever they see as vulnerable for their much smaller share of the pie too. So they are quite willing to be used to drive others into belligerence. And once that is done, then the war is on.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

OK- enough of this. If war is not the answer, than what is? Creating and maintaining a system of personal responsibility from the start is the answer. That the price of bad behavior is paid by each individual. That no one leaches off others period.
Then war is much less likely because no one derives gain on others backs but by their own labor. If they fail to act and expect others to do the supporting, then they are to be made wiser before they see the need to take that which they don't earn by force.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There's no denying that war is good for the economy, but in the long run it creates a lot of debt.


Bankers want debt. THAT is their whole mission in life....create debt. 

When you have a monetary system based on debt, the debt (and hence, money supply) must ALWAYS increase to pay back the previous debt + interest. That is why deflation scares them to death.

The fact the public debt is going off the scale of reality makes no difference to bankers. At some point, they will simply hit the 'reset' button and start the game over....just like they have in the past. They ain't exactly hiding it for anyone that cares to look into it a bit, but having trapped the vast majority of folks in the system, they won.

*"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" *â Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> WAY WRONG TWICE!!!
> 
> 1. With a war tax, the gov't has an incentive to keep wars going so the tax money doesn't stop rolling in. And by the rule of follow-the-money, you know politicians will do what it take to keep getting the people's money
> 
> 2. And why tax higher incomes only? If you are trying to make the people feel the pain, then everyone should be paying.


You're right on .1, they just might do that instead of put it on the credit card. They might spend the war tax and put more on the credit card too. Who knows? At any rate it would so dimish the economy, cause so much unrest with the masses, that maybe a new course would be taken. Hopefully one more sane. Your second point is also true. My reason for only above a certain point is in my experience, the wealthier families generally don't supply the soldiers. I wanted them to have skin in the game. Even with this approach I seriously doubt the benefactors of war would be effected. It was a way of cutting their supply line. Cut it now or kick the can down the road and have a greatly diminished economy cut it. It's no great secret I would rather have some personal accountability by government and society right now.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Again TA, great post. And never forget folks, each citizen owes around $57,000 apiece on the National debt. The bankers will do everything they can to satisfy this debt before pushing that reset button. I'll let you use your imagination on what might be done before that time. I'll leave you with these thoughts, are there any elected officials that will stand up to them and defend their constituents? And what will they be willing to give up to satisfy the debt? I suggest, look at their character for starters to give you a clue.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Why should a child die of abuse or a traffic accident? The issue is not choosing but how much are you willing to do to prevent it. Because war is quite capable of being delivered.
> You act like all people had to do is say no. But you must know, despite the intensity of your statements, that it is not that simple. Even if you were in charge here and could prevent actions here, that would not stop war being brought from outside.


However, lets face it, the gulf wars 1 and 2 were about Oil, no matter what the claims are, bottom line we need what they have. Lets also face the fact that the military industrial complex is a big source of income/jobs/profit/lobbying and war stimulates the economy (much more than humanitarian aid for example).
The "people" did stop the VietNam war --sadly it took a long time to do so.

Frankly I'm strictly isolationist - if someone threatens us directly we nuke them, otherwise we stick to ourselves. This will require we be self sufficient as a nation which will probably never happen.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> So how many more Muslims did we need to kill in Afghanistan and Iraq before they would "leave non-Muslims in peace", because according to that logic, we must not have killed enough.


All of them?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> What a nasty, untrue, bitter distortion that is just to counter at argument. The killing is being done already by ISIS and people like them and being allowed by their supporters, and those who have had the delusion that it can't touch them personally, so they had no need to act.
> What I actually said was that Muslims apparently were not going to act for the sake of preventing atrocities to others, only when the ugliness turns against them personally. Which seems to be a common failing-that blyth and safe platitudes of comiseration are enough but no risk as long as only others pay the price.
> It is unfortunate that Muslims allow such evil to be cultivated inside their control. So until the infection has spread to them personally, they have done nothing. And until they were dragged into the frey so that this snake would turn on them too, they were going to continue to do nothing.
> Look at the difference the burning of the Muslim Jordanian pilot made. Since that horror was directed at themselves instead of just other religions, they now took action. If they had taken such action a long time before, when only non Muslims were targeted, there would have been no ISIS to bite anyone.


On Sept 10, 2001 would George W Bush have been able to go before congress and propose invading Afghanistan? How much did we care about ISIS before they pushed the good, Christian Yazidis into the mountains and started beheading westerners? Would we have entered the Second World War earlier if Krystalnacht had targeted cathedrals instead of synagogues, baptists had been put on trains instead of Jews and gypsies? Had Germany not resumed submarine warfare and tried to draw Mexico in to their side would we ever had entered the First World War? You're right. People don't react until it becomes personal but it's not limited to Jordanians or Muslims.

War isn't always the answer but it can be. But before war is undertaken it is incumbent that certain answers are already known. Who is the enemy? Why is it important to risk life and treasure? What do you do when you win? Managing the aftermath of battle has as many ramifications as managing the battle. Maybe even more.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I"ll throw a solution out there: educate the women. Both ISIS and Boko Haram are groups of men (in gender only) trying to establish a territory that they can implement their way of life that subjugates women, quite often in horrendous ways. If the women were empowered with education and civil rights do you think they would put up with this? I personally think that elevating women to the same level of influence as men would greatly reduce the likelihood of war all across the globe.

This might be a solution more specific to this situation but if women had more access to education it would make the world a better place.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> The "people" did stop the VietNam war --sadly it took a long time to do so.


I protested against that war. That qualifies as combat experience in Vietnam, doesn't it?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Truckinguy said:


> I"ll throw a solution out there: educate the women. Both ISIS and Boko Haram are groups of men (in gender only) trying to establish a territory that they can implement their way of life that subjugates women, quite often in horrendous ways. If the women were empowered with education and civil rights do you think they would put up with this? I personally think that elevating women to the same level of influence as men would greatly reduce the likelihood of war all across the globe.
> 
> This might be a solution more specific to this situation but if women had more access to education it would make the world a better place.


Wish I could like this more than once.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There's no denying that war is good for the economy, but in the long run it creates a lot of debt. Interestingly, conservatives don't worry about war debt nearly as much as the worry about debt from social programs. I never understood why.


Politicians care little about debt. They are not the people who will have to pay it back.
Making war machines is a big industry. Can you imagine the economy of the U.S. if they ever decided to stop going to war with other countries. Unemployment would be in the double digits for ever. Young people wouldn't have a place to go when they couldn't find a job. No young people would be killed to make money for business men.

Some people want this and do not care about the debt we go into or the number of people killed. We are not going to pay back any money anyway and people keep having kids. To some people war is a good idea, especially when them or their family are not on the stinky end of the stick.

Guess it is in what you want.
A good economy and lots of dead people or live people and high unemployment. The choice is too easy to make.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Politicians care little about debt.


Maybe so, but some complain about it a lot. The thing is that they use debt as justification to end welfare, but not justification to end war.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Truckinguy said:


> I"ll throw a solution out there: educate the women. Both ISIS and Boko Haram are groups of men (in gender only) trying to establish a territory that they can implement their way of life that subjugates women, quite often in horrendous ways. If the women were empowered with education and civil rights do you think they would put up with this? I personally think that elevating women to the same level of influence as men would greatly reduce the likelihood of war all across the globe.
> 
> This might be a solution more specific to this situation but if women had more access to education it would make the world a better place.


This is a really good point. The places on earth that are the most peaceful and prosperous do tend to also recognize women's rights. But you can't just wave a wand and make it happen overnight. Even here in the US where we like to think we are so "exceptional" and enlightened, women didn't get to vote until the 20th century.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but some complain about it a lot. The thing is that they use debt as justification to end welfare, but not justification to end war.


They only complain about the debt when the other party decides they want to raise the debt limit. They tend to forget the many times they have raised the debt.
When they want to raise the debt limit it is the right thing to do. It is only the wrong thing to do when the other party wants to do the same thing.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> This is a really good point. The places on earth that are the most peaceful and prosperous do tend to also recognize women's rights. But you can't just wave a wand and make it happen overnight. Even here in the US where we like to think we are so "exceptional" and enlightened, women didn't get to vote until the 20th century.


Yeah, I"m not really sure the best way to go about it but I think it's a big step toward peace. I"m sure it would be fought tooth and nail by the male dominated factions involved.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> On Sept 10, 2001 would George W Bush have been able to go before congress and propose invading Afghanistan? How much did we care about ISIS before they pushed the good, Christian Yazidis into the mountains and started beheading westerners? Would we have entered the Second World War earlier if Krystalnacht had targeted cathedrals instead of synagogues, baptists had been put on trains instead of Jews and gypsies? Had Germany not resumed submarine warfare and tried to draw Mexico in to their side would we ever had entered the First World War? You're right. People don't react until it becomes personal but it's not limited to Jordanians or Muslims.
> 
> War isn't always the answer but it can be. But before war is undertaken it is incumbent that certain answers are already known. Who is the enemy? Why is it important to risk life and treasure? What do you do when you win? Managing the aftermath of battle has as many ramifications as managing the battle. Maybe even more.


That horse has been flogged to death. It is literally history and particularly selected history at that.
The issue is not 20-20 hindsight blaming- which is still myopic - but who can end this current pre-war before it results in a much worse devastation. And the answer is Islam. And the only answer that does not result in a hardened sectarian war is for Islam to stop it because they resist even a hint of someone outside Islam doing it, as you so well have repeated for them.
Only way they will accept that a war on some of Islam is not a war on all Islam is if they, not outsiders , make the choice.
Well, until very recently they felt no need to do that, preferring to make the west a villian, refuse to admit they were growing a viper to bite the hand that fed them, and thus excuse any need of inconveniencing themselves, ably abetted by their apologists. 
It is not incumbent to be sure of anything before a larger war starts. It is neccessary to be the victor. But it is much better to stop it before it comes to that. And the only way to avoid it coming to that is to make it impossible for Islam to do otherwise. 
Imagine if that was the goal with Germany before the Nazis took power- that there was the will and the foresight to short circuit their takeover before it happened. That the Germans themselves saw that path lead to destruction.
That should be the goal here because, unlike the 1940s, we have that example to teach us. ISIS and others like it are the Nazis of the moment. And only the foolish think that doing nothing will result in them fading away on their own.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but some complain about it a lot. The thing is that they use debt as justification to end welfare, but not justification to end war.


That's because they can survive very well if the takers from inside go away but not if someone from outside comes to take everything.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

pancho said:


> Politicians care little about debt. They are not the people who will have to pay it back.
> Making war machines is a big industry. Can you imagine the economy of the U.S. if they ever decided to stop going to war with other countries. Unemployment would be in the double digits for ever. Young people wouldn't have a place to go when they couldn't find a job. No young people would be killed to make money for business men.
> 
> Some people want this and do not care about the debt we go into or the number of people killed. We are not going to pay back any money anyway and people keep having kids. To some people war is a good idea, especially when them or their family are not on the stinky end of the stick.
> ...


I think there are a lot of other things to spend money on. Most cities in North America have old crumbling infrastructure. Spend the war money on fixing cities up and you'll employ a lot of people and kill very few in the process.

One of our customers is a company that does horizontal drilling for gas companies and other utilities like cable and telephone. Not only is there a lot of new pipe to go in the ground, there is so much old stuff to replace they will never be out of work and could use a lot more crews.

I'm sure they could dream up enough municipal projects to keep everyone working if they want to. It would keep the unions happy! Toronto itself has a water and wastewater backlog that estimates a need for $4.2 billion over the next ten years. Multiply that by all the other utilities in all the other cities in North America and there's enough work for everyone for a long time.

Then there's roads, bridges..

It's all priorities.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> This is a really good point. The places on earth that are the most peaceful and prosperous do tend to also recognize women's rights. But you can't just wave a wand and make it happen overnight. Even here in the US where we like to think we are so "exceptional" and enlightened, women didn't get to vote until the 20th century.


And that's when the good times ended. Now get back to milking cows MO!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but some complain about it a lot. The thing is that they use debt as justification to end welfare, but not justification to end war.


I've said it before...the Constitution mandates protecting our borders. The Constitution does not mention entitlement programs....only general welfare which didn't mean free money for nothing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I think there are a lot of other things to spend money on. Most cities in North America have old crumbling infrastructure. Spend the war money on fixing cities up and you'll employ a lot of people and kill very few in the process.
> 
> One of our customers is a company that does horizontal drilling for gas companies and other utilities like cable and telephone. Not only is there a lot of new pipe to go in the ground, there is so much old stuff to replace they will never be out of work and could use a lot more crews.
> 
> ...


Don't know about north of our border but down here the people would not allow such use of funds.
If it isn't a war they do not want to spend money on it.

Here the tag money and gas taxes are supposed to keep the roads in shape and build new ones. Politicians have their hand in it and not much reaches the right place.

The horizontal drilling and utilities charge their customers for money invested in those things. There is some spare change so that usually goes to politicians so the utilities are able to raise the rates.

Water and wastewater charges their customers for improvements that usually never happen. Also taxes will pitch some in the mix also.

War is the main way the politicians use to raise the debt limit. Both parties agree on that.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> I've said it before...the Constitution mandates protecting our borders. The Constitution does not mention entitlement programs....only general welfare which didn't mean free money for nothing.


But people are able to vote in anything the politicians let them vote on.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I protested against that war. That qualifies as combat experience in Vietnam, doesn't it?




:umno:


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

pancho said:


> Don't know about north of our border but down here the people would not allow such use of funds.
> If it isn't a war they do not want to spend money on it.
> 
> Here the tag money and gas taxes are supposed to keep the roads in shape and build new ones. Politicians have their hand in it and not much reaches the right place.
> ...


Sounds about the same as here. I guess the utility companies are private but the water, wastewater and roads are municipal responsibilities. You're right that most of the money goes into a general revenue pot and gets divvied up from there for the most part. Emergency services could use a lot more funding, a lot of schools are getting old, lots of schools with portables could use a bigger building. I think the government could easily spend all the war money on taking care of it's citizens and the economy would be about the same.

If there's any extra money they could use it to lower taxes... sorry, just talking crazy now...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Sounds about the same as here. I guess the utility companies are private but the water, wastewater and roads are municipal responsibilities. You're right that most of the money goes into a general revenue pot and gets divvied up from there for the most part. Emergency services could use a lot more funding, a lot of schools are getting old, lots of schools with portables could use a bigger building. I think the government could easily spend all the war money on taking care of it's citizens and the economy would be about the same.
> 
> If there's any extra money they could use it to lower taxes... sorry, just talking crazy now...


Around here schools are doing great. The kids that go to them, not so great.
All of the schools are new with everything related to sports you can think of. Not a lot of books.
School officials are doing good. One was charged with giving another man a million$ bribe a while back. You can imagine what he was going to get out of it. Drop out rate is high and those who graduate sometimes cannot read.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

pancho said:


> But people are able to vote in anything the politicians let them vote on.


Yes, the people learned to vote themselves from the largess, and some politicians use that to their advantage to promote their socialist propaganda and to keep the power of their elected office. It is however, un-constitutional.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but some complain about it a lot. The thing is that they use debt as justification to end welfare, but not justification to end war.



Perhaps it has MORE to do with the fact that health, welfare, and SS take up about 2/3 of the spending, and defense is less than a quarter.

Personally, I'd be for cutting 50% of both.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> That horse has been flogged to death. It is literally history and particularly selected history at that.
> The issue is not 20-20 hindsight blaming- which is still myopic - but who can end this current pre-war before it results in a much worse devastation. And the answer is Islam. And the only answer that does not result in a hardened sectarian war is for Islam to stop it because they resist even a hint of someone outside Islam doing it, as you so well have repeated for them.
> Only way they will accept that a war on some of Islam is not a war on all Islam is if they, not outsiders , make the choice.
> Well, until very recently they felt no need to do that, preferring to make the west a villian, refuse to admit they were growing a viper to bite the hand that fed them, and thus excuse any need of inconveniencing themselves, ably abetted by their apologists.
> ...


I'll quit flogging this horse when you quit flogging the one that says Muslims act differently than any other group of humans. Show me the conflict our country has gotten involved in before the threat, real or manufactured, was at our door.

Muslims will have to settle this problem for there to be any long term solution we approve of. But, contrary to the opinions of some, all Muslims aren't the same and don't act en masse. They will act on their time table and when they feel their lives or lifestyles are threatened. No amount of browbeating from the west will hasten this action. Acknowledging and supporting those fighting extremists will help but knowing you're not supporting next weeks extremists is vital. Language that doesn't differentiate does more harm than good.

There is an alternative. We can go in in overwhelming force and remain an occupying power for decades or centuries. But that only delays the inevitable uprising. One can never really know the outcome of victory but if one doesn't plan for that victory it will be short lived. Choose to ignore that history you don't like at your own peril. I'll try to learn from it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'll quit flogging this horse when you quit flogging the one that says Muslims act differently than any other group of humans. Show me the conflict our country has gotten involved in before the threat, real or manufactured, was at our door.
> 
> Muslims will have to settle this problem for there to be any long term solution we approve of. But, contrary to the opinions of some, all Muslims aren't the same and don't act en masse. They will act on their time table and when they feel their lives or lifestyles are threatened. No amount of browbeating from the west will hasten this action. Acknowledging and supporting those fighting extremists will help but knowing you're not supporting next weeks extremists is vital. Language that doesn't differentiate does more harm than good.
> 
> There is an alternative. We can go in in overwhelming force and remain an occupying power for decades or centuries. But that only delays the inevitable uprising. One can never really know the outcome of victory but if one doesn't plan for that victory it will be short lived. Choose to ignore that history you don't like at your own peril. I'll try to learn from it.



Do you read anything I have said? Indeed I have said Muslims are the people to solve the problem, not the west. But the difference is that you seem to feel that Muslims will do this settling at some point on their own, while there is not a shred of evidence that they will. Unlike your interpretation of universal humanity, Muslims clearly make a distinction, as a practice of their religion, between Muslims and everybody else on the face of the earth. It is clear in every writing, news report or explanation I have ever read or interaction I have ever had.
So the west either sits there and takes the assaults of fundamentalists or it takes actions that drag all of your now infamously moderate muslims into the frey. The west can not afford to let Islam pretend that the right hand not knowing what the left is doing is the same as being virtuous. 
At this moment in time, Muslims do generally act differently than westerners. In the west, there is always some who object to every idea or policy. There are many who profess no attachment to any religion at all. And some who object to religion being a basis of anything. They are tolerated by the west. They are protected, and in their ignorance, think this is true everywhere. No politician or government lead ever stands up and says that they are doing such-and-such because it is the Christian, Buddhist, etc way.
But it is not. In countries dominated by Islam, blasphemy has consquences more severe than other crimes. In every written word by a Muslim, the idea that Islam is to be protected is first and foremost. And humans come in last only as a display of practicing the tolerances of the religion. They tolerate non islamic people at their discretion, those people do not have rights to the tolerance as they do in the current west.
So no, Muslims do not act differently as humans, which is only your interpretation of my words into order to slide past right by reality in pursuit of criticism. The trouble is that they react just like every human given a cause. Some behave with fundamentalist fervor while most stand by in uncomfortable silence being afraid to object to the fundamentalist. 

What I suggest is moving the line of fire so that Muslims countries are just as much in the sights of the death and brutality of their own fundamentalists as we are.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> This is a really good point. The places on earth that are the most peaceful and prosperous do tend to also recognize women's rights. But you can't just wave a wand and make it happen overnight. Even here in the US where we like to think we are so "exceptional" and enlightened, women didn't get to vote until the 20th century.


Well, we might have to wave a few wands that say Sidewinder or Patriot on them first...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Well, we might have to wave a few wands that say Sidewinder or Patriot on them first...


But why do we here in the U.S. think we have the right to force other countries to do what we want them to do instead of what the people in that country want to do?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

pancho said:


> But why do we here in the U.S. think we have the right to force other countries to do what we want them to do instead of what the people in that country want to do?


I would suggest that the women in many of those countries don't want to be subjugated like they are. People who are tortured and murdered simply for believing differently than those in power deserve to have someone stand up for them. I know it's not as cut and dried as that but when basic human rights are being denied to people I think it's right to step in.

With the situations with ISIS and Boco Haram I have no problem with the military going in and roasting them. They are a blight on the earth and their horrendous acts have removed their right to exist.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I would suggest that the women in many of those countries don't want to be subjugated like they are. People who are tortured and murdered simply for believing differently than those in power deserve to have someone stand up for them. I know it's not as cut and dried as that but when basic human rights are being denied to people I think it's right to step in.
> 
> With the situations with ISIS and Boco Haram I have no problem with the military going in and roasting them. They are a blight on the earth and their horrendous acts have removed their right to exist.


Do you think the gays in the U.S. want to be subjugated like they are here in the U.S.? Would it be right for another country to invade us because they do not like how we treat gays?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

pancho said:


> Do you think the gays in the U.S. want to be subjugated like they are here in the U.S.? Would it be right for another country to invade us because they do not like how we treat gays?


:hijacked:

Gays are not subjugated in the US (barring any bad jokes you might want to make). They may face prejudice from some people, or be the subject of trashy gossip as you are no doubt aware, but as a whole, American gays enjoy great freedom as well as, by many reports, higher incomes and education than heterosexuals. 

In addition, your example suffers from the logic error of the false analogy. How we treat gays is not favorably comparable to how some Muslim countries treat women. 

I do agree that the US should not be forcing its moral standards on others. But saving Muslim girls in public schools and non-Muslims from the likes of Boko Haram is not forcing our standards on anyone. It is simply defending life and human rights. And don't misconstrue this is an argument to send the US to war, I'm a believer that we are not the world cops and can not respond to every 911 call to the UN.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> :hijacked:
> 
> Gays are not subjugated in the US (barring any bad jokes you might want to make). They may face prejudice from some people, or be the subject of trashy gossip as you are no doubt aware, but as a whole, American gays enjoy great freedom as well as, by many reports, higher incomes and education than heterosexuals.
> 
> ...


I would add to this that gay rights have made remarkable progress over the years and we are actively providing freedoms and rights to many groups who have been marginalized and put down. Most "first world" countries have made an effort to promote individual rights and freedoms and, although there is still a way to go, we are at least working toward a better society. I see no such effort in the middle east. 

Apparently, in Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive cars. I can't believe in this day and age that is even tolerated! Those head to toe burkas that are worn in some countries with only a slit for the eyes showing aren't the latest fashion statement, they are meant to dehumanize women and make them objects. Some even have a mesh there that covers the eyes. That doesn't necessitate a military attack, of course, but everyone in the world should be outraged and express their disapproval to those countries and cultures involved.

Education is the key. Nobody is restricted from living their lives by extending basic human rights to others. We can all have whatever religion we want, follow whatever career we want, raise our families, entertain ourselves whether it's with sports, movies or whatever and lead fulfilling social lives and still extend respect and compassion to others. Military intervention may be necessary in some situations but the only way to lasting peace in the world is to continue to spread the message of basic human rights and freedoms around the world.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

pancho said:


> Do you think the gays in the U.S. want to be subjugated like they are here in the U.S.? Would it be right for another country to invade us because they do not like how we treat gays?


Gays are only subjugated because of religious intolerance. It's ironic how Christians are so disapproving about what others do in the name of religion and yet they use the Bible to marginalize a segment of society that they disapprove of.

In answer to your question, if another country disapproves of something the US does then they should feel free to express their disapproval in whatever way they desire. I think that the US has the ability to defend itself against whatever it needs to, whether it be military, legal, financial sanctions or in the political arena. The US protects freedom of expression, it's only fair to extend that to others.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> Gays are only subjugated because of religious intolerance. .


That of course in totally opposite of the truth. Stalin and the Nazis were active in targeting gays. I suspect that if I looked into it almost all non-religious dictators were active in that way.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

where I want to said:


> That of course in totally opposite of the truth. Stalin and the Nazis were active in targeting gays. I suspect that if I looked into it almost all non-religious dictators were active in that way.


I have to agree, even though I liked the rest of Truckinguy's msg. The word homophobia gets tossed around a lot these days, but homophobia in the US today is hardly a real phobia. It is nothing like many parts of the word past and present. Sure, much ****-hate is cloaked in religion, like in Iran which has no gays if you ask former President ImANutJob even though he was perfectly willing to execute any gays he found. But Uganda's Kill-the-gays campaign seems less about religion and more about an ethnic cleansing of a sort. As Stalin was an atheist, his criminalization of gays with 5 years hard labor is hard to call religious.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> If there is a good reason for war you don't leave any of the enemy alive. If you try not to kill the enemy and then rebuild their country you did not have a good enough reason to go to war in the first place.


Actually that's how you create the problem you are talking about. If you look at the times in history that was tried there are generational hatred still today.

Again I must ask you do you not think we had a "good enough reason to go to war" with Japan and Germany in the 40s?




pancho said:


> That is the problem. The U.S. does not have a good enough reason to go to war. Profit is the main reason. That is the reasons for all of the rules when there should be none.


The theory behind the rules/laws for warfare is to make sure what you are suggesting and the results happen.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> That's exactly my point. A US military victory over ISIS will be a short term victory, at best, unless Islamic reform also takes place.


Only if we fight them the way we have fought since the 50s.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There's no denying that war is good for the economy, but in the long run it creates a lot of debt. Interestingly, conservatives don't worry about war debt nearly as much as the worry about debt from social programs. I never understood why.


A few reasons. 

One, the government has the constitutional power to go to war. It DOES NOT have the constitutional power to give tax money directly to an individual when that individual is not providing a good nor service to the government in return.

Two, if it were not for all the unconstitutional debt the amount of debt from a war wouldn't be a problem to pay off.

Three, defending the nation makes it stronger. Creating and supporting millions upon millions of leaches living off of it makes it weaker.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

where I want to said:


> That of course in totally opposite of the truth. Stalin and the Nazis were active in targeting gays. I suspect that if I looked into it almost all non-religious dictators were active in that way.


Fair enough but the question was asked about gays in the US and most of the resistance to gay marriage, for example, seems to be from the religious sector. On threads on this forum about the subject, most objection has been from a religious point of view. 

There really is no reason to vilify homosexuality except by arbitrary biblical decree or by an individual's personal discomfort of the subject matter. Being gay does not pose a threat to any individual or society in general.

A bit of a thread drift here but the question was asked.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> Fair enough but the question was asked about gays in the US and most of the resistance to gay marriage, for example, seems to be from the religious sector. On threads on this forum about the subject, most objection has been from a religious point of view.
> 
> There really is no reason to vilify homosexuality except by arbitrary biblical decree or by an individual's personal discomfort of the subject matter. Being gay does not pose a threat to any individual or society in general.
> 
> A bit of a thread drift here but the question was asked.


A person should be mighty careful about labeling others in protest to being labeled. Bigotry is a process not a direction.


----------



## GeneMO (Dec 8, 2014)

"It takes millions to win a war, to loose one takes all ya got"

That is an old quote, now it would need to say "billions"

Gene


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GeneMO said:


> "It takes millions to win a war, to loose one takes all ya got"
> 
> That is an old quote, now it would need to say "billions"
> 
> Gene


Avoiding war is good policy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Avoiding war is good policy.


Said Chamberlain to Hitler.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Said Chamberlain to Hitler.


We have only ourselves to blame. We attacked Iraq; a country that never attacked us, and never even threatened to attack us. In the process we killed 150,000 Iraqis and threw government employees out of their jobs because of their religion. Now we're shocked that they're angry about it, so we want to start a new war.

Is that pretty much it?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We have only ourselves to blame. We attacked Iraq; a country that never attacked us, and never even threatened to attack us. In the process we killed 150,000 Iraqis and threw government employees out of their jobs because of their religion. Now we're shocked that they're angry about it, so we want to start a new war.
> 
> Is that pretty much it?


No and no- nothing is as simple as you keep repeating even for kids in the first grade. Ever read the Nazi justification for their attacks on places like Poland? The same nonsense you keep repeating that ethic Germans were being mistreated and so the Poles deserved to pay for it. Then the Belgians, dragged in by alliance to defend the Poles by treaty, Sudetenland, etc etc etc. The Germans were just mad, as were the French and the British, Japanese, Chinese-, Russians, etc endlessly back in hustory.
How can you feel that your simple answer, which has never worked, it all there is to it? How can you ignore all of history? Just to be irritating?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> We have only ourselves to blame. We attacked Iraq; a country that never attacked us, and never even threatened to attack us. In the process we killed 150,000 Iraqis and threw government employees out of their jobs because of their religion. Now we're shocked that they're angry about it, so we want to start a new war.
> 
> Is that pretty much it?


No, not even close. Nobody lost their job because of their religion, but because of their loyalty to a ruthless dictator. And we aren't the ones starting a new war, ISIS is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> No, not even close. Nobody lost their job because of their religion, but because of their loyalty to a ruthless dictator.


So we sorted them into groups of Sunni and Shiite, then fired all the Sunnis. Yeah, it just so happened that Sunnis like Saddam and Shiites hated him. So we handed the new government and oil revenue over to Shiites. Guess how much oil revenue they shared with Sunnis?

How is that NOT religious discrimination?

Face it, we botched it. We threw Sunnis into the street, some of them career military with pensions, gave then no voice in government, no voice in were oil revenue went, then shot them down in the streets of Fallujah & Mosul. And you really can't understand what their problem is?

Do you seriously think that shooting them in the streets of Fallujah & Mosul is the answer? Why do you think it didn't work the first time? How will we do it differently this time so it will work?

By the way, you know that we'll be killing Sunnis along side of the Iranian military, don't you? When you're fighting with Iranian troops you really have to wonder if what you're doing is the right thing.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

We didn't sort 'em, they segregated themselves. I'm just glad our southern Baptists and northeastern Catholics have found a way to coexist peacefully..........

Where we "botched it" was not taking Hussein out during the first Gulf War.

"Gave them no voice in government" is a gross exaggeration, a lot of effort went into a fair and open voting process.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> "Gave them no voice in government" is a gross exaggeration, a lot of effort went into a fair and open voting process.


Yeah right, and Shiites were riding in air conditioned Hummers while Sunnis rode camels. You didn't think they would notice?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We have only ourselves to blame. We attacked Iraq; a country that never attacked us, and never even threatened to attack us. In the process we killed 150,000 Iraqis and threw government employees out of their jobs because of their religion. Now we're shocked that they're angry about it, so we want to start a new war.
> 
> Is that pretty much it?


Iraq invaded another nation and by international agreement many other nations agreed to use force to remove them. If one of your neighbor comes in are takes over your house and is stealing everything you have would you think it wrong if other of your neighbors come in and take him off to jail so he can't do it again?

The problem is the pols didn't have the gonads to take him to jail. They just put him outside and told him to play nice from now on.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Iraq invaded another nation and by international agreement many other nations agreed to use force to remove them. If one of your neighbor comes in are takes over your house and is stealing everything you have would you think it wrong if other of your neighbors come in and take him off to jail so he can't do it again?
> 
> The problem is the pols didn't have the gonads to take him to jail. They just put him outside and told him to play nice from now on.


OK. But we're not talking about ousting Saddam from Kuwait.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Iraq invaded another nation and by international agreement many other nations agreed to use force to remove them. If one of your neighbor comes in are takes over your house and is stealing everything you have would you think it wrong if other of your neighbors come in and take him off to jail so he can't do it again?
> 
> The problem is the pols didn't have the gonads to take him to jail. They just put him outside and told him to play nice from now on.



You're omitting the information where Kuwait had been caught slant drilling into Iraq's oil reserves... And Saddam had the tacit approval from his US stooges..

Seems like the important stuff always gets left out...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Shine said:


> You're omitting the information where Kuwait had been caught slant drilling into Iraq's oil reserves... And Saddam had the tacit approval from his US stooges..
> 
> Seems like the important stuff always gets left out...


Or created as justifications retroactively.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> You're omitting the information where Kuwait had been caught slant drilling into Iraq's oil reserves... And Saddam had the tacit approval from his US stooges..
> 
> Seems like the important stuff always gets left out...


Ok, that's what international courts are for. If you catch your neighbor swiping apples from your tree are you justified if kill his children, steal his car and burn down his house?

There was an international group which followed international law and tried other means BEFORE using force to get him out of Kuwait.

Our error was to not fight the conflict like a war but like a high school debate that just got a little rambunctious.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK. But we're not talking about ousting Saddam from Kuwait.


Really? What other war have we fought against Iraq?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Really? What other war have we fought against Iraq?


Saddam wasn't in Kuwait when we invaded Iraq in 2003.

But my problem with getting involved again now is that I don't know what we would be after. Aside from the distasteful idea that we'll be fighting ISIS along side of Iranian troops, even if we're successful in driving ISIS out of Iraq how will we resolve the differences between Shiites & Sunnis?

I suppose we could oust the Shiites from office and put Sunnis back in charge, and the Sunni government would probably hang the Shiite leader for killing his own countrymen, but that puts Iraq right back where it was when Saddam was in charge. There has to be something more to the solution than just driving out ISIS.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Saddam wasn't in Kuwait when we invaded Iraq in 2003.
> 
> But my problem with getting involved again now is that I don't know what we would be after. Aside from the distasteful idea that we'll be fighting ISIS along side of Iranian troops, even if we're successful in driving ISIS out of Iraq how will we resolve the differences between Shiites & Sunnis?
> 
> I suppose we could oust the Shiites from office and put Sunnis back in charge, and the Sunni government would probably hang the Shiite leader for killing his own countrymen, but that puts Iraq right back where it was when Saddam was in charge. There has to be something more to the solution than just driving out ISIS.


They have been in conflict for a long time, I don't think there is much anyone but the ones involved can do to end it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> They have been in conflict for a long time, I don't think there is much anyone but the ones involved can do to end it.


If you have no solution then I think we need to stay out of it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If you have no solution then I think we need to stay out of it.


Well what is a solution that would not result in a large loss of life? Which one is least likely to kill the other? This goes back to Mohammed and succession after his death. Who would be the next caliph.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Well what is a solution that would not result in a large loss of life?


Like it or don't, Sunnis have legitimate gripes. Having won the occupation in Iraq, the US still wields a great deal of authority in Iraq (we saw that recently when we said Maliki had to go). I think we're in a position to compel the Shiites to sit down to have meaningful discussions.

Fighting the war in the direction we're headed will only result in more dominance over Sunnis by Shiites. If that wasn't the plan the Iranian troops wouldn't be there. We shouldn't let that happen. That's just doubling-down on the failed Bush policy in Iraq.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Like it or don't, Sunnis have legitimate gripes. Having won the occupation in Iraq, the US still wields a great deal of authority in Iraq (we saw that recently when we said Maliki had to go). I think we're in a position to compel the Shiites to sit down to have meaningful discussions.
> 
> Fighting the war in the direction we're headed will only result in more dominance over Sunnis by Shiites. If that wasn't the plan the Iranian troops wouldn't be there. We shouldn't let that happen. That's just doubling-down on the failed Bush policy in Iraq.


Both sides have massacred each other, how is it you judge one over the other?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Both sides have massacred each other, how is it you judge one over the other?


Interesting that it's a 'both sides were wrong' thing today, but when it came to invading Iraq and hanging Saddam it was all the Sunnis' fault.

The point is that the current Shiite government has no reason to bargain with Sunnis. They've got control of the government, the money, and even access to Iranian & US military force. Unless we intervene they have no reason to sit down and talk with Sunnis. Why should they?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Interesting that it's a 'both sides were wrong' thing today, but when it came to invading Iraq and hanging Saddam it was all the Sunnis' fault.
> 
> The point is that the current Shiite government has no reason to bargain with Sunnis. They've got control of the government, the money, and even access to Iranian & US military force. Unless we intervene they have no reason to sit down and talk with Sunnis. Why should they?


Why would either side give in, history, religious beliefs and lack of trust. Saddam would have been eventually overthrown again history repeats. He was a genocidal dictator.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Why would either side give in, history, religious beliefs and lack of trust. Saddam would have been eventually overthrown again history repeats. He was a genocidal dictator.


Why is it genocide when Sunnis kill Shiites, but not genocide when Shiites kill Sunnis? Even a better question; if we get involved in Iraq at this point, how is what we'll be doing not genocide against Sunnis?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Saddam would have been eventually overthrown again history repeats.


We sacrificed 4,500 US troop lives and $1 trillion in treasure for something that was going to happen anyway? Sounds like a terrific investment.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Why is it genocide when Sunnis kill Shiites, but not genocide when Shiites kill Sunnis? Even a better question; if we get involved in Iraq at this point, how is what we'll be doing not genocide against Sunnis?


How come it's genocide when one branch of Islam is attacked and its not when Christians are attacked? How come it wasn't genocide when Saddam killed Kurds or Sunni's, or when Iran killed Shiites? How come it's not genocide when any even semi homogenous group attacks another? 
You keep making up stuff in order to layer guilt on Americans. You pick a side to denigrate with the word "genocide" but don't seem to apply it for the same actions if it doesn't suit.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Why is it genocide when Sunnis kill Shiites, but not genocide when Shiites kill Sunnis? Even a better question; if we get involved in Iraq at this point, how is what we'll be doing not genocide against Sunnis?


We never left Iraq, the involvement has not ended.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Deleted, pain killers from surgery kicking in


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> How come it wasn't genocide when Saddam killed Kurds or Sunni's, or when Iran killed Shiites?


Let's at least keep who was killing whom straight. Saddam didn't kill Kurds and Sunnis, he killed Kurds and Shiites. Saddam and his army were all Sunnis, so they would never attack Sunnis.

Iran joined the war to fight along side of Iraqi Shiites. They fought Saddam and his Sunni army, so Iran was killing Sunnis. But since you think that Iran killing Sunnis was genocide, do you think Saddam was justified in gassing them to end the genocide?

So you see, it was never so cut & dried as the Bush administration wanted us to believe. Yes, Saddam killed Iraqi Shiites & Kurds, but he never considered them to be his countrymen. Now the Shiites are getting ready for the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis, and Iraq's Shiite government doesn't consider then to be their countrymen.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Let's at least keep who was killing whom straight. Saddam didn't kill Kurds and Sunnis, he killed Kurds and Shiites. Saddam and his army were all Sunnis, so they would never attack Sunnis.
> 
> Iran joined the war to fight along side of Iraqi Shiites. They fought Saddam and his Sunni army, so Iran was killing Sunnis. But since you think that Iran killing Sunnis was genocide, do you think Saddam was justified in gassing them to end the genocide?
> 
> So you see, it was never so cut & dried as the Bush administration wanted us to believe. Yes, Saddam killed Iraqi Shiites & Kurds, but he never considered them to be his countrymen. Now the Shiites are getting ready for the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis, and Iraq's Shiite government doesn't consider then to be their countrymen.


I'm so mad about the Sunnis and Shiites killing each other that if they kill another 20million or so, I might write a letter to my senator!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Let's at least keep who was killing whom straight. Saddam didn't kill Kurds and Sunnis, he killed Kurds and Shiites. Saddam and his army were all Sunnis, so they would never attack Sunnis.
> 
> Iran joined the war to fight along side of Iraqi Shiites. They fought Saddam and his Sunni army, so Iran was killing Sunnis. But since you think that Iran killing Sunnis was genocide, do you think Saddam was justified in gassing them to end the genocide?
> 
> So you see, it was never so cut & dried as the Bush administration wanted us to believe. Yes, Saddam killed Iraqi Shiites & Kurds, but he never considered them to be his countrymen. Now the Shiites are getting ready for the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis, and Iraq's Shiite government doesn't consider then to be their countrymen.


OK- then how come it's not genocide when Saddam killed Kurds and Sunnis, or when Muslims kill Christians or whatever I said before too? 
I'm glad to see you write the fatal words that is was not so cut and dried, even if you procede to blame Bush, which is pointless now as you procede to blame Americans as if they solely created the mess alllllll by themselves. As if was all so cut and dried.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> OK- then how come it's not genocide when Saddam killed Kurds and Sunnis


One more time. Saddam didn't kill Kurds & Sunnis, he killed Kurds & Shiites.

And the Shiites were backed by Iranian troops. It was more than an armed rebellion, it was outright civil war. I'm certain that Saddam would say that he was dealing with an attack on his country and that lethal force was justified. What president of what country wouldn't defend his country against an armed uprising?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> One more time. Saddam didn't kill Kurds & Sunnis, he killed Kurds & Shiites.


WRONG!

Saddam killed lots of Sunnis, just not on the scale of genocide. He killed Army Officers, politicians, his family members, and friends, all or almost all of which were Sunni.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> One more time. Saddam didn't kill Kurds & Sunnis, he killed Kurds & Shiites.
> 
> And the Shiites were backed by Iranian troops. It was more than an armed rebellion, it was outright civil war. I'm certain that Saddam would say that he was dealing with an attack on his country and that lethal force was justified. What president of what country wouldn't defend his country against an armed uprising?


OK -again remember the word genocide? Especially as you used it. However I do appreciate your ability to identify with Saddam's thoughts on the murder off those of different religious or ethnic, to declare it not genocide, as opposed to- well wait, that seems the essence of the definition of genocide. 

BTW I ran across by a Dr Ian R Douglas and two Iraqis which was amazingly like the words you used. Seems he is part of a group intent on prosecuting the US for its invasion of Iraq, along with writing anti-Isreali articles, and one interesting one on the "magnificent act of courage" of the Iraqi who threw a shoe at President Bush. He dabbles in globalization debate too. I had never heard of him and certainly never knew he had a following.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> OK -again remember the word genocide? Especially as you used it. However I do appreciate your ability to identify with Saddam's thoughts on the murder off those of different religious or ethnic, to declare it not genocide, as opposed to- well wait, that seems the essence of the definition of genocide.


But now we're contemplating partnering with Shiite troops in an effort to kill Iraqi Sunnis. How is this any better than what Saddam did to Shiites?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But now we're contemplating partnering with Shiite troops in an effort to kill Iraqi Sunnis. How is this any better than what Saddam did to Shiites?


Because the Sunnis have coalesced into ISIS with a brand of violence straight from the middle ages. And have strong ties to al qaeda and their vow to kill all Americans? And are recruiting people to conduct a war inside the US? Just a stab in the dark there.......


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> But now we're contemplating partnering with Shiite troops in an effort to kill Iraqi Sunnis. How is this any better than what Saddam did to Shiites?



It isn't any better.
Glad to see you know that it's wrong to justify abuse of power in the present because there was abuse of power in the past.



where I want to said:


> Because the Sunnis have coalesced into ISIS with a brand of violence straight from the middle ages. And have strong ties to al qaeda and their vow to kill all Americans? And are recruiting people to conduct a war inside the US? Just a stab in the dark there.......



Don't be deceived by the Sunni/Shiite conflict. They BOTH are sworn enemies of America.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Saddam wasn't in Kuwait when we invaded Iraq in 2003.


Seeing as how we were still at war with Iraq in 2003 what's your point? The war between Iraq and the United States was not over until 2008. That's when the peace treaty/surrender documents were signed.

A ceasefire in not a peace treaty and does NOT end a war, only stops the fighting for a time. Either side can return to fighting any time they wish. Either side can legally resume fighting if the other has violated the ceasefire agreement. If you read a bit of history you will see that Iraq had repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement.

Think of it this way. Iraq 'assaulted' Kuwait. An arrest warrant was issued and served. Iraq resisted arrest and force was used. It was tried, convicted and sentenced. Then it was released on probation. It repeated violated the terms of its probation and its probation was revoked. When the probation officer came to take it to jail it resisted AGAIN and force was used AGAIN.





Nevada said:


> But my problem with getting involved again now is that I don't know what we would be after. Aside from the distasteful idea that we'll be fighting ISIS along side of Iranian troops, even if we're successful in driving ISIS out of Iraq how will we resolve the differences between Shiites & Sunnis?


Unless we are ready and willing to fight a true war we need to sit back and support both sides. The more time and effort they spend killing each other the better it is for us.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I've gotten a cramp in my index finger pushing the like button on all these posts. Problem is I can see both sides, there ain't no easy way 
out. I can see much better now what the politicians are going through. What a mess this ME business. Since no one over there can be trusted to not stab you in the back I say get out. To heck with the oil, and cut all trade, all of it. Let'em shoot their remaining bullets, let'em get down to throwing rocks. We are fools to spend so many lives, squander the wealth of future generations in an action like this. We've been there since 1991. Good grief!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

bowdonkey said:


> I've gotten a cramp in my index finger pushing the like button on all these posts. Problem is I can see both sides, there ain't no easy way
> out. I can see much better now what the politicians are going through. What a mess this ME business. Since no one over there can be trusted to not stab you in the back I say get out. To heck with the oil, and cut all trade, all of it. Let'em shoot their remaining bullets, let'em get down to throwing rocks. We are fools to spend so many lives, squander the wealth of future generations in an action like this. We've been there since 1991 Good grief!


Liked this too.:happy2:

Only correction is the date. We've been messing around over there about a hundred years longer, when oil was discovered. Go figure,:bored:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't think that Obama is clear sighted about Islam at all. He believes in his childhood impression of the religion and he believes in his own judgement no matter that it has not proven anything more than wrong repeatedly. Although the results of his Arab Spring vision might have dented it a bit.
Also there are allies in the area and some places of stability and some places that will fall to ISIS without fail. Then there is the fact that ISIS through its affiliation with AL Qatar will attack inside the US. 
This makes it hard to let it go without engagement for this President particularly. 
Unfortunately the world did not buy into the personal diplomacy he was thought originally was so powerful. And all he can do now is recycle stuff that others tried unsuccessfully to try and claw back to some stability.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Let's at least keep who was killing whom straight. Saddam didn't kill Kurds and Sunnis, he killed Kurds and Shiites. Saddam and his army were all Sunnis, so they would never attack Sunnis.
> 
> Iran joined the war to fight along side of Iraqi Shiites. They fought Saddam and his Sunni army, so Iran was killing Sunnis. But since you think that Iran killing Sunnis was genocide, do you think Saddam was justified in gassing them to end the genocide?
> 
> So you see, it was never so cut & dried as the Bush administration wanted us to believe. Yes, Saddam killed Iraqi Shiites & Kurds, but he never considered them to be his countrymen. Now the Shiites are getting ready for the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis, and Iraq's Shiite government doesn't consider then to be their countrymen.


Well if the shiite govt is about to wholesale slaughter the sunnis ( whom ISIS is a part of) let them get on with it..eliminate half the mess over there in any case before we go in to deal with the other half and Iran..because that day is coming just as it did before...remember there was a time we supported Saddam and his Sunnis..suffice it to say we will be fighting one group or the other there for a very long time..as for another solution other than war? Not one..we cant make them shake hands and play nice..they wont..they cant..they never did without one side being a genocidal heavy handed dictator over the other..HOWEVER...I do know this..I am sick of them all. I suggest we wait a bit and let Iran take care of Isis which will be fairly soon...then put them back in place with heavy sanctions..its a gamble to be sure but its one of those sure bet things..Im pretty sure it will happen that way. What do you think all this playing footsies under the table with Iran is all about anyway.


----------

