• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A question for the anti-war crowd.

T

The Real McCoy

What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Real McCoy said:
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Ask them nicely to stop with flowers and candy...

Then change all of your presents rules and customs to adhere to what they believe, because we would rather offend our own than offend others....

Don't forget to try to understand them...Ask them to lie down on the couch and tell you their problems...remember to agree to everything...

Most of all...Shout from the highest mountain how wrong you are...Blame MUST be given, and the only place to look is inward...

:roll:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Stick to attacking those who have attacked us (al Qaeda) and those who have threatened to attack us.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Some of these are unrealistic, but...

1. Let Palestine have Israel, give the Jews U.S. citizenship, and help the Palestinians establish a democratic state.
2. Slowly withdraw all U.S. troops from the entire Middle East region, staying or returning only if necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis, and then only as long as necessary.
3. Completely convert to any of a dozen cleaner, more abundant fuels, and end our dependency (and thus interests) on Middle East oil.
4. Get rid of U.S.-led sanctions and embargos that largely contribute to poverty and starvation for the civilians.
5. Establish trust and set a good example in the world by practicing the human rights standards that we preach, even for non-citizens.
6. Condemn specific actions by states, but avoid calling them "evil" and driving their military ambitions forward instead of backward.
7. Measured and appropriate retaliation for specific attacks, not preemptive strikes based on a biased interpretation of intelligence.
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Some of these are unrealistic, but...
Some?

1. Let Palestine have Israel, give the Jews U.S. citizenship, and help the Palestinians establish a democratic state.
1- The Israel claim to their land is at least as legitimate as the Palestinian claim. Why move the Israelis? Why not move the Palestinians back to the countries they came from?
2- A "democratic state" is not a panacea. Unless the people in that state have embraced the tenets of the Enlightenement, democracy means nothing. Witness the elections in Palestine, where Hamas (the sworn enemy of Israel) won big.

2. Slowly withdraw all U.S. troops from the entire Middle East region, staying or returning only if necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis, and then only as long as necessary.
Because protecting US interests, even if doing so pisses some people off, isnt worth doing?

3. Completely convert to any of a dozen cleaner, more abundant fuels, and end our dependency (and thus interests) on Middle East oil.
~75% of our oil does NOT come from the mid east.
How are we 'dependent' on ME oil?

4. Get rid of U.S.-led sanctions and embargos that largely contribute to poverty and starvation for the civilians.
If you stop sanctioning countries, the UN will have even fewer teeth than it has now.

5. Establish trust and set a good example in the world by practicing the human rights standards that we preach, even for non-citizens.
You;re a terrorist. You find out that the US will do nothing to violate your humans rights. Do you:
-Embrace the US and thank them for finalling living up to its own standards:
-Smile, knowing that you;re winning.

6. Condemn specific actions by states, but avoid calling them "evil" and driving their military ambitions forward instead of backward.
Isnt it fairly clear that when GWB descibed Iran and NK as 'evil', he was on the money? Same with RWR and the USSR?
Does it bother you that people have the balls to call a spade a spade?

7. Measured and appropriate retaliation for specific attacks, not preemptive strikes based on a biased interpretation of intelligence.
Proportional responses are what led to the debacle in Vietnam. When you attack, you do so with overwhelming force and keep attacking until you dont need to attack any longer. Restraining yourself to "just enough" invites disaster.
And only a fool discounts the validity of the pre-emptive strike. If you can stop it, there's no reason to let the other guy hit first.

"Biased interpretation" of intel?
What "bias" did Hillary, Al, John, John, Ted, etc, have that would lead them to the same conclusions and GWB, Cheney, etc?
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Thats a meaningless question in my view as there is no link between the iraq war and the attacks on the world trade center or what have you. Those involved in 9/11 [if bush is to be belived] where from saudi arabia and saddam played no role in those attacks. Invading iraq to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 makes as much sence to me as invading switiland to deal with the I.R.A. Indeed those involved i the 7/7 bombings in loundon did so partly because of the suporrt of the brittish and americans for saddam husien during the iran iraq war during which saddam commited many of the aroisities which we are now putting him on trial for. If our suporrt for saddam husien was the reason for the 7/7 bombings how is removeing him sopossed to counter terroism?

The real way for brittian and america to counter terroism is to clean up our foreign policy. For starters we could stop suporrting opressive regiumes like the state of israel and the saudi-royal family. This would give those in the middle east less justification for bombing us
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Red_Dave said:
Thats a meaningless question in my view as there is no link between the iraq war and the attacks on the world trade center or what have you. Those involved in 9/11 [if bush is to be belived] where from saudi arabia and saddam played no role in those attacks. Invading iraq to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 makes as much sence to me as invading switiland to deal with the I.R.A.
You;re proceeding from fals premises:
-No one ever claimed that Iraq was connected with 9/11
-That Iraq was not connected to 9/11 does not mean that Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
M14 Shooter said:
1- The Israel claim to their land is at least as legitimate as the Palestinian claim. Why move the Israelis? Why not move the Palestinians back to the countries they came from?
Because partitioning Palestine was the wrong thing to do. How would you like it if China divided up Texas and moved all the Native Americans there? The Jews had been without a "nation" for 2000 years before 1948, the only "claim" they had to that land came from ancient history.

M14 Shooter said:
2- A "democratic state" is not a panacea. Unless the people in that state have embraced the tenets of the Enlightenement, democracy means nothing. Witness the elections in Palestine, where Hamas (the sworn enemy of Israel) won big.
There has been a strong democratic movement in the Middle East, for quite some time now. Gunny tells us that about 70% of Iran's population are dissatisfied with their theocracy and prefer a democratic state. The elections in Iraq are also a testament. I believe the yearning for freedom and self-determination burns within all people.

I'm not sure if I trust Hamas yet, given their history.

M14 Shooter said:
Because protecting US interests, even if doing so pisses some people off, isnt worth doing?
That depends. I think U.S. "interests" in the region should be limited to humanitarian efforts, and if that pisses anyone off then they're likely part of the problem. But besides protecting Israel, what other "interests" do we have in that region?

M14 Shooter said:
~75% of our oil does NOT come from the mid east.
How are we 'dependent' on ME oil?
25% is enough to be a dependance. Even Bush admits we're too dependant on ME oil, that's why he suggested drilling in the ANWR. Saudi Arabia is our number 2 importer of crude oil, and number 3 for petrolium.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/041101/1energy.htm

M14 Shooter said:
If you stop sanctioning countries, the UN will have even fewer teeth than it has now.
No, the terrorists will have fewer teeth because sanctions that starve civilians to death is a main talking point in convincing people that killing our civilians is equally justified. The UN needs to grow a spine, but there are plenty of other ways to achieve those goals without sanctions.


M14 Shooter said:
You;re a terrorist. You find out that the US will do nothing to violate your humans rights. Do you:
-Embrace the US and thank them for finalling living up to its own standards:
-Smile, knowing that you;re winning.
Are you really saying we have to violate basic human rights in order to win the war on terrorism?

You know what I think makes terrorists smile? The propoganda victory that Americans are hypocrites by not practicing what they preach. And the political victory of seeing us terrorized into giving up our basic civil rights. Have you seen the letter we intercepted from Zawahiri to Zarqawi? They are fully aware that they cannot win against us militarily, so they are exercising the political angle to their advantage. He condemned Zarqawi's beheadings because it was causing them to lose popular support in the Muslim world. We have GOT to uphold the highest standards and keep them from getting the very ammunition they're looking for! How can we ask anyone to embrace a democracy that promotes human rights, when we ourselves can't prove that it can be done?


M14 Shooter said:
Isnt it fairly clear that when GWB descibed Iran and NK as 'evil', he was on the money? Same with RWR and the USSR?
Does it bother you that people have the balls to call a spade a spade?
Their actions are evil, we should concentrate on that only. Whether or not they are truly "evil" is irrelavent. That can be proven by pointing to specific actions. It would accomplish the same thing, calling a spade a spade, but it would be more diplomatic. And diplomacy is absolutely paramount in the nuclear anti-proliferation struggle.


M14 Shooter said:
Proportional responses are what led to the debacle in Vietnam. When you attack, you do so with overwhelming force and keep attacking until you dont need to attack any longer. Restraining yourself to "just enough" invites disaster.
And only a fool discounts the validity of the pre-emptive strike. If you can stop it, there's no reason to let the other guy hit first.
I agree with your last sentence, but in the case of Iraq, concerning an iminent attack, it's pretty evident that there was really nothing there to stop. For the record, I don't believe that a few cruise missiles in response to the USS Cole bombing was proportional. We should have taken out bin Laden and the Taliban then. By proportional, I mean adequately addressing the actual threat, which includes the right combination of military might and diplomatic understanding, but does not include invading entire nations to thwart a hypothetical worst-case scenario.


M14 Shooter said:
"Biased interpretation" of intel?
What "bias" did Hillary, Al, John, John, Ted, etc, have that would lead them to the same conclusions and GWB, Cheney, etc?
There are Congressmen complaining that Bush didn't share all the information, specifically the caveats in certain intelligence reports that came from the Office of Special Planning and the Presidential Daily Briefs. We'll have to wait for phase two of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation to see who'se telling the truth.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
You;re proceeding from fals premises:
-No one ever claimed that Iraq was connected with 9/11-That Iraq was not connected to 9/11 does not mean that Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror
M14, you can't be serious. Bush, Cheney, Buck-toothed Condi, and others in the Bush administration stated emphatically that there was a connection between Iraq and the September 11th attacks. Once they learned otherwise, they shut their traps, but prior to that time, they couldn't stop asserting a connection.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." - George W. Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." - George W. Bush

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

I won't argue that there is no crafty politics involved in the "coincidence" that 70% of Americans believed Hussein was personally involved in 9/11, considering how often Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same sentence.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
You;re proceeding from fals premises:
-No one ever claimed that Iraq was connected with 9/11
-That Iraq was not connected to 9/11 does not mean that Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror
But surely "war on terror" was a responce to 9/11? What other terroism would the u.s be fighting by invadeing a seamingly random country?
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Binary_Digit said:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." - George W. Bush

.
There you go, straight from the horses mouth, my premise was not flawed
 
T

The Real McCoy

Binary_Digit said:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." - George W. Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." - George W. Bush

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

I won't argue that there is no crafty politics involved in the "coincidence" that 70% of Americans believed Hussein was personally involved in 9/11, considering how often Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same sentence.
I see no contradiction there... Saddam wasn't involved with 9/11 but there was a connection with Iraq and al Qaeda. What's your point?
 
T

The Real McCoy

Red_Dave said:
But surely "war on terror" was a responce to 9/11? What other terroism would the u.s be fighting by invadeing a seamingly random country?
The war on terror was inevitable. Unfortunately, it took an event on the scale of 9/11 to open our eyes and I find it disturbing that many still seem to be blind to the reality. You're seem quite oblivious to the the oppressive life lived throughout the entire middle east, a key ingredient fueling the terrorists.

If a stable democracy can be established in Iraq, it would set an example to the rest of that region which is why we need to stop trying to politicize the war, finding every conceivable way to criticize it and do everything we can to support it and allow the seeds of freedom to be planted in a part of the world that has been devoid of it up til now.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Red_Dave said:
But surely "war on terror" was a responce to 9/11? What other terroism would the u.s be fighting by invadeing a seamingly random country?
Yes. The war on terror was a response to 9/11.
Iraq supported terrorism.
Whats the problem?
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
Yes. The war on terror was a response to 9/11.
Iraq supported terrorism.
Whats the problem?
So what terroism did iraq suporrt that was linked to 9/11?
 
T

The Real McCoy

Red_Dave said:
So what terroism did iraq suporrt that was linked to 9/11?
Saddam funded Palestinian terrorists among others.

9/11 was an act of terrorism.

Terror is terror.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
Saddam funded Palestinian terrorists among others.

9/11 was an act of terrorism.

Terror is terror.
Is there any evidence of that? next you will be saying iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If after terroists wouldnt it have been better to have invaded iran or saudi-arabia?
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?

There never was much of a terrorism problem before they accidentally allowed hte plains to hit the trade towers.

To this day if you threaten anyone especially someone famous you get in trouble in a quick minute.

As long as there are places in the world where people have nothing to live for but going to heaven, and kids have no family but a gang, and there is the contrast of nations that can go to the moon while others can't even feed their people when their people are working then you can bet your ass that there is something to worry about because it is a mathematical fact that contradictions clash.
And thats what terrorism often is the result of.

The solution is a better and more promising life for the people; and that wont happen over night especially when we have people who dont even care about the American people responsible for the well being of people in other countries.

So returning to my answer the first thing America needs to do to combat terrorism is watch its own back and take care of its own people better. THats what every country should do.


The war on Iraq is just an excuse to excorcise power in the middle east because that is the only place in the world that still rejects American manipulation.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Red_Dave said:
Is there any evidence of that? next you will be saying iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If after terroists wouldnt it have been better to have invaded iran or saudi-arabia?
There's a wealth of evidence supporting that.

Invading Iran would be a much worse idea and invading Saudi Arabia would be suicide.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1) Correct energy policy to remove dependence on oil

2) Get the Hell out of the Middle east for at least fifty years

3)Sit back and watch them kill each other on TV, warm in our snuggly beds

4) Destroy with extreme prejudice...ANYONE who attacks us. As in Dead, not hiding, not running.....DEAD.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Employee_of_the_Month said:
There never was much of a terrorism problem before they accidentally allowed hte plains to hit the trade towers.
Terrorism has been problem for quite some time now and ignoring it only allowed the problem to grow, culminating with the events of 9/11.


Employee_of_the_Month said:
As long as there are places in the world where people have nothing to live for but going to heaven, and kids have no family but a gang, and there is the contrast of nations that can go to the moon while others can't even feed their people when their people are working then you can bet your ass that there is something to worry about because it is a mathematical fact that contradictions clash.
And thats what terrorism often is the result of.

The solution is a better and more promising life for the people; and that wont happen over night especially when we have people who dont even care about the American people responsible for the well being of people in other countries.
Exactly why we are in Iraq, to promote a free society giving the people hope and opportunities that never would have existed before. A free Iraq would set an example for the entire Middle East who have constantly lived under oppression and haven't yet gotten a taste of freedom. I agree that it doesn't happen over night, it's something that takes time and dedication.



Employee_of_the_Month said:
The war on Iraq is just an excuse to excorcise power in the middle east because that is the only place in the world that still rejects American manipulation.
What they reject are free societies, instead favoring oppressive governments who bombard their people with anti-American propaganda, blaming us for all their woes and adding fuel to the fire that drives extremism.
 
T

The Real McCoy

tecoyah said:
1) Correct energy policy to remove dependence on oil
Not an easy task considering it's been our primary energy source for well over a century... but they're working on it.

tecoyah said:
2) Get the Hell out of the Middle east for at least fifty years
That's a tough one.. On the one hand our presense in the Middle East further enrages many extremists but on the other, we can't simply pull out of a situation like Iraq right away. I feel we should stay until their government and military can stand on their own 2 feet and then leave, allowing the planted seed of freedom to flourish.


tecoyah said:
3)Sit back and watch them kill each other on TV, warm in our snuggly beds
Sitting back and doing nothing is one of the primary reasons 9/11 happened.

tecoyah said:
4) Destroy with extreme prejudice...ANYONE who attacks us. As in Dead, not hiding, not running.....DEAD.
I favor bringing them to justice... but if all else fails, kill em.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
There's a wealth of evidence supporting that.

Invading Iran would be a much worse idea and invading Saudi Arabia would be suicide.
invadeing and ocuping iraq was/is hardly a pice of cake but america still managed
 
T

The Real McCoy

Red_Dave said:
invadeing and ocuping iraq was/is hardly a pice of cake but america still managed
Iraq is smaller.

Picture invading Saudi Arabia, the heart of the Islamic world.

Picture U.S. forces occupying Mecca and Medina.

The insurgency in Iraq is NOTHING compared to what it would be in that situation.
 
Top Bottom