The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub For those who value freedom...

I dont think the issue at hand here is people feeling any sympathy for Al-Qaeda.

As a matter of fact even the new SecDef was pushing for the closure of gitmo, its not like everyone who wants gitmo closed is exactly a leftist.

I dont think the issue is what people do to terrorists overseas even, if theyre not Americans. (One exception being foreign nationals of friendly nations, alienating our allies by totally disrespecting their soveirenghty isnt wise in the long term IMO, and I dont think anyone has accused the Germans or even the French of being soft or lax in pursuing and prosecuting terrorists)

Its the fact that there is a very great likelihood that MOST of the people in gitmo, are in fact innocent. Its also use of secret evidence against US citizens (and citizens of friendly nations whom we have treaties/bonds with) that is at issue.

I understand the ex-military peoples concerns here, but unfortunatly have yet to see much put forth other than something that basically boils down to " terrorists are evil, so trust that the authorities are doing the right thing no matter what." With a heavy insunuation that everyone else is ignorant because we arent military people, and everyone else is trying to "help the bad guys" or dissent is the "bad guys whining".

I have a problem with that, because its EXACTLY the proper conditions for loss of liberty. The pervasiveness of that mindset is in fact possibly the number one reason I am worried so much about our future.

And Arkh, I would think yes it does apply - if the soldiers are knowingly targeting civilians for the purpose of killing civilians. Which, to the best of my knowlegde, does not happen very often in the US armed forces. And when it does happen, there are prosecutions and jailings. Which is a big difference between US and them, and a difference I hope we can keep.

Quote:

---

If our soldiers were here at home where they belong, they wouldn't be getting killed over seas. If our soldiers were here at home where they belong we would be able to defend against the terrorists who COME HERE to attack us.

---

Our soldiers are exactly where they need to be, because, as present, our enemies are concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Quada knows what is at stake in both of those countries, which is exactly why they are pushing back so hard. If they lose there, they have lost it ALL. If we pull back, it will allow them an opportunity to regroup, rearm, and hit us again at the spot of THIER chosing. Where will that be? New York again? Washington, again. Los Angeles? We need to stop them there, so the don't try to hit us here.

Quote:

---

What are we doing in Iraq?

---

See the above. Marines (and soldiers) run to the sound of gunfire, ant Iraq (and Afghanistan) is where the fighting is.

Quote:

---

We're pissing off the Iraqi civilians so they join in on the jihad.

---

That actually doesn't seem to be the case (see this). It is my understanding that currently, most of the insurgency/terrorism is Iraq is being fomented by outsiders from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Native Iraquis are getting fed up with it, even the the former Saddam Bathists, and as we are seeing in Anbar Province, even the Iraqui insurgents are starting to kill the Al Quaida terrorists. This is how the just in the last day or so, the top Al Quaida guy in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed.

Quote:

---

Where does that leave us? With a bunch of pissed off Iraqis who would A) sit at home and not bother us in the least or B) come here to the US (ps - they can't attack us if they aren't here) and attack us. Remember, this is a war on TERROR, not a war on IRAQ, Iraq just happens to be where the potential terrorists live.

---

Not potential terrorists. This is where the no shit current active terrorists are. If we leave, as we did when we helped Afghanistan kick out the Soviets leaving the way open for the Taliban to take over, these guys won't just go home and start herding goats again. We have to knock there dicks into the dirt OVER THERE.

Quote:

---

Oh, and oil. (FYI, if the Bush administration said "We're going to war with Iraq for their oil." I would be totally cool with that; empirical wars serve a clean cut purpose, whether it's good or bad.)

---

Oil is a consideration, but it's not the only consideraton. The primary goal is the defeat of Islamic Fascism, and like it or not, that is best done over there.

Well this in one heckuva a post....

First when it comes to our political process until we get all of the money out of it there will only be 2 viable parties... To think that combined the top 6 political candidates have raised close to $100 million in the first quarter of this year alone is sickening. The fact that the common man has no chance to run for office is what is wrong... Big money and undue influence by special interest groups is what needs to be addressed.

As for the "War on Terror" I will add my 2 cents.... the best defense is a strong offense... and you always want to fight on your terms at the time of your choosing at the location you want to... You must always dictate as many of the variables in a battle you can... never let the enemy dictate anything you can control.

With that said I think we made a mistake in going into Iraq, but I only say that as an after the fact event. The bigger mistake was grossly under-estimating the nation building required after the cessation of military operations. That I think we can blame at the highest level and what is slowly turning into what I call the 3 ring circus that is taking place at the White House. We made some brutal mistakes in Iraq not realizing the instability of the entire region and not having enough forces in place to deal with the fallout of the decline of the Hussein debacle.

Our forces are doing the best they can, but the simple fact is that it is next to impossible to train for this environment. It is extremely similar to Vietnam in that it is next to impossible to tell the difference between friend and foe. We need to be there to stabilize the region... and yes oil is a big consideration (but let's not get started on that... we could write a book on that one). Somehow we need to get the Iraqi's more interested in self government than killing each other (which they have done for centuries by the way).

Finally having soldiers here will accomplish nothing... and if you need a study on isolationism and appeasement go read the early history of WWII... and remember, those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We have faltered and unfortunately we may fail... yet it will be for the right causes. This is a war on terror but also a religious war of principles and ideals... what we really need to have happen is for the silent Muslim majority who preach the true ideal of Islam that is peace, not the radical extremist fundamentals of violence... until that happens we will always have this struggle... until then we need to address the issue AWAY from and NOT ON OUR SOIL... that is losing fight that you do not want to have happen!

"Oh come on, man. On September 11th, save troops in Guantamo Bay, the Korean border, and other such foreign bases and militarized zones, our whole armed forces were pretty much in mainland U.S. We had an Air Force squadron doing drills about what... half an hour away from New York? I'm sure Armed Forces are crawling all over the Northeast seeing how there are such important cities so closely packed together, yet guess what? They were still able to take down not one, but both Twin Towers."

Correct.

"You're absolutely right about the effects of leaving Iraw, Owain. Much as I would like to see the war end, people are being too irrational about it. They freak out about 3000 deaths in four years, if you put it into perspective, this is fantastic, probably the safest war we have ever fought, a minuscule price to pay for stopping the spread of Islam in the middle east. In Vietnam by now we would have been in the hundreds of thousands of deaths."

Lets break this down into its 2 main points:

1) " Much as I would like to see the war end, people are being too irrational about it. They freak out about 3000 deaths in four years"

Now, apply that logic to erosion of liberty. Terrorists killed 3000 people. Yeah, it obviously a big deal, but its irrational to sacrifice liberty for it. In fact, the goal of terrorism of this type is to intimidate and change a society through use of fear. In other words, we are losing, no matter how many terrorists we kill, simply by closing our society and forsaking our former ideals.

and part 2) "this is fantastic, probably the safest war we have ever fought, a minuscule price to pay for stopping the spread of Islam in the middle east. "

I hope you mean Islamo-facism as some call it, the Middle East has been mostly Islamic for a long long time now. However if its Islamo-facism, there was none of it to be found in Iraq before the war. For all Saddam was an evil tyrant, he was a secular one. Islamo facists, be they sunni al quada or shiite Iranian bvoth despised him for being a secularist. Which is why, despite his many failings on the human rights front the funded him, and gave him all sorts of chemical weapons technology during the 80's. He was a bad guy then, and we knew it, but he was fighting the Iranian islamo-facists who to our view were worse guys, as they wanted to form an islamo-facist nation across the middle east, including Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, I happen to agree with Reagan on this.

Though the current Iraq war was justified 100% on total pure BS. Independant thinkers, as some on this thread like to say, have been skeptical from the start, and put 2+2 together on it pretty early.

Now just lately, the proof has been surfacing. Sad state of affairs.

The sadder state, is that there is, unfortunatly, probably some truth to the postulation that a retreat from Iraq may embolden terrorist elements. I disagree with some of the details in previous posts on the how and why, but, still, retreating from this mess we've created may not be in our best interests.

Which is sad, because we never should have been there and created the mess in the first place. But all we can do now is deal with it.

Regardless of whether or not we should be in Iraq isn't really the issue at hand here, as I see this thread being derailed. There are reasons to leave and there are reasons to stay; there are reasons we should have never gone in the first place, and there are the reasons we went. Derid hit the nail on the head though; we're in Iraq, we need to finish on a positive note, and we need to avoid throwing away our liberties while we're trying to wipe out the terrorists and patch the holes. If we're going to play 'world police', so be it, but I'm not willing to give up the freedoms that our troops are fighting for, regardless of where they fight for them at.

First of all, I agree about Janet Reno, well not that its the worst, but yes that it was pretty damn bad. I also remember Ruby Ridge, the legislative assaults on our gun rights, the constant stories of the ATF storming and trashing the houses of innocent gun owners and much much more. Like I've said previously, I'm not a Democrat.

The recent tactics are different, and have more to do with setting bad precedents, and the setting up of a survielance state. Hell, once your on one of the govts "bad lists" like the no-fly, just try getting yourself off of it. Noone can, except the wealthy and influential, and even they can have difficulty.

Where to go from here?

Well, just imagine Janet Reno with the kinds of unchecked survielance and detention powers currently being enjoyed by that lapdog Gonzales.

I remember, better than most.

The groundwork, in the name of fighting terrorism, is being cleary and plainly laid right now to empower a bigger, badder Janet Reno, one who will be able to label innocent people a "domestic terrorist" and detain them with evedence noone ever gets to see or hear.

If it can plausibly happen in govt, it will. If you depend on the wisdom, objectivity, and personal integrity of govt officials to not abuse easily abusable powers, you are going to be dissapointed about every time. I think you know that as much as I do. Just because you dont mind Bush having these powers, are you so sure you dont mind Hillary having them?