War against terror? Or disarming the world?

[Rynocerous]

I am sure everyone here knows that I supported Bush in our attack on Iraq. This was based on the fact that we were told that Saddam was hepling fund terrorist groups to attack the US. Along with the fact that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now I am starting to lose faith when I hear that we are implying for North Korea to disarm! What is he F---in stupid. We can barely support the war in Iraq! If Bush wants to disarm the world, maybe he should set an example and disarm USA!!! Doesn't seem like a good idea does it? Just wondering about your opinions on what is going on with the North Korea situation, as well as what you think the US should do in general on these situations.

Cheers,

Rynocerous

 

[rmcrobertson]

Read Robert A. Heinlein, "Solution Unsatisfactory."

 

[MissTwisties]

USA should mind their own business and stop trying to tell everyone else what to do. Helping other countries yes, but not with a detrimental effect for their own country (USA). A country that is always trying to change the world can be looked at the wrong way by the other countries. Just seem to me sometimes that USA is trying to transform everyone that is different out there to be just like them. I don't know how many times I heard those words "Americans are better than any other country out there, we are stronger, our army is bigger, and we are undestructibles" It gets old after a while, ya know..


I love this country. But I don't feel "better" than anyone else out there just because I live in the US.

 

[Flatlander]

From The Globe and Mail:

A majority of people in eight countries – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South Korea, Spain and Canada – said they thought it should not be the U.S. role to spread democracy, AP-Ipsos polls indicate.

Resistance to Mr. Bush's plans was strongest in France, at 84 per cent.....

About as many Germans – 78 per cent – took that position, while two-thirds of those in Britain said they didn't think the United States should be exporting democracy. Just over half of those in Spain and Italy felt that way......

In the United States, a slight majority, 53 per cent, said the United States should not be trying to spread democracy, while 45 per cent said that role is appropriate.

 

[kid]

Can you say Draft? Its has been talked about recently and will probably come about again during Mr. Bushes Reign.

 

[OUMoose]

Can you say Draft? Its has been talked about recently and will probably come about again during Mr. Bushes Reign.

A full blown draft would never make it past the house. There are policies in place currently for a possible medical personnel "acquisition", but nothing past that.

What I see happening is the increased buildup of troops in south Korea as a deterrance, while attempting to maintain a force in Iraq (and soon Iran). Once that's in place, the US will be so taxed that it wouldn't suprise me if conflicts start breaking out on our own soil in what would boil down to another civil war. The Administration will brand those that fight against it as traitors and terrorists for convenience, and remove them. The president will invoke FEMA and basically disolve the power of congress, creating a political dictatorship....

Or maybe I've been watching star wars too long...

 

[ginshun]

Personally, I have always supported the war, even after the WMD stuff fell through, but the deeper we get, the more I would jsut rather see Bush take the 120,000 troops that are sitting in Iraq, and post them on the border between us and Mexico.

 

[kid]

oumouse in bold

A full blown draft would never make it past the house. There are policies in place currently for a possible medical personnel "acquisition", but nothing past that.

The gov't did it before, it could happen again. They will find ways to "git ur done" thats what they do. I also think of hearing about it all the time, makes me think they kind of use it like a threat to other countries; i mean they have to be hearing the same thing right?

 

[OUMoose]

oumouse in bold

A full blown draft would never make it past the house. There are policies in place currently for a possible medical personnel "acquisition", but nothing past that.

The gov't did it before, it could happen again. They will find ways to "git ur done" thats what they do. I also think of hearing about it all the time, makes me think they kind of use it like a threat to other countries; i mean they have to be hearing the same thing right?

The difference in a draft today would be that the people in those nice cushy chairs on capitol hill won't risk the outward public dissent that the previous draft caused. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's unlikely.

 

[Schtankybampo]

The other big difference between then and now is a massive dissillusionment on the part of our eligible "draftees" Once upon a time, every red-blooded son in this country would give his life to defend it, and was looked VERY askance at if he didn't volunteer. Now the tables have turned because we can't trust our politicians.

Once upon a time I supported the war, too. I have one very good friend who is gearing up for his THIRD tour in Iraq, and another who is currently in his second. We are a nation being nominally "led" by a religious zealot.

That said, I'd still rather live here where I am allowed to say things like that without Stormtroopers crashing through my parlor windows to haul me off.

Breathe, he's only allowed to be there for another 4 years....


M

 

[kid]

The difference in a draft today would be that the people in those nice cushy chairs on capitol hill won't risk the outward public dissent that the previous draft caused. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's unlikely.

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22051

Then how are they going to get troops for this?
Its just seems logical that they have to do a draft.

 

[michaeledward]

I would like to see our military start to defend territory, buildings and assets. Or at minimum capture territory, buildings and assets. And kill enemies.

I am tired of our attempts to defend 'freedom', spread 'democracy', and fight 'evil'.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and capture land. Once that is complete, it serves no other purpose.

 

[Rynocerous]

I would like to see our military start to defend territory, buildings and assets. Or at minimum capture territory, buildings and assets. And kill enemies.

I am tired of our attempts to defend 'freedom', spread 'democracy', and fight 'evil'.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and capture land. Once that is complete, it serves no other purpose.

Actually, our purpose was not to "go out and kill". Our pupose was to seize and capture with minimum casualties. We didn't go into this saying I can't wait to kill someone. That is a ridiculous thing to say. Oh and what about the main pupose of our military which is homeland security.

Rynocerous,

 

[michaeledward]

Actually, our purpose was not to "go out and kill". Our pupose was to seize and capture with minimum casualties. We didn't go into this saying I can't wait to kill someone. That is a ridiculous thing to say. Oh and what about the main pupose of our military which is homeland security.

Rynocerous,

The political goals may not have been to 'go out and kill'.

However, the tool selected, the United States Military, is a tool that is designed to 'kill enemies and capture territory'.

If our goal was not to 'kill enemies and capture territory', I submit, that the political forces selected the wrong tool from the toolbox.

Many of the challenges facing the United States Military in Iraq today result from the idea that the United States Military are 'Peacekeepers' and 'Nationbuilders' and 'Freedom Marchers'. I disagree.

I similarly think that a 'war on terror' is incorrectly named. War is fought against armies and nations, not tactics. And Terrorism is a tactic.

Mike

 

[Karazenpo]

The political goals may not have been to 'go out and kill'.

However, the tool selected, the United States Military, is a tool that is designed to 'kill enemies and capture territory'.

If our goal was not to 'kill enemies and capture territory', I submit, that the political forces selected the wrong tool from the toolbox.

Many of the challenges facing the United States Military in Iraq today result from the idea that the United States Military are 'Peacekeepers' and 'Nationbuilders' and 'Freedom Marchers'. I disagree.

I similarly think that a 'war on terror' is incorrectly named. War is fought against armies and nations, not tactics. And Terrorism is a tactic.

Mike

Mike, we're on the same page initially going to Iraq and I understand what you mean in another post when you said WTF, now disarm Korea but I'll take issue when you said why don't we disarm. It's simple. Some may hate to hear this but yes, we are currently the big fish in the pond. Yes, like human nature although some hate to admit it, we are looking out for ourselves because, as in life, if we don't, who is? and if anyone thinks anything different then you're living in a fairy tale world and cruising for disaster. As long as we are in power to call the shots and we best well should, not to mention, are you comparing our country, the President and our government to North Korea and their regime? C'ome on, that guy makes Ward Churchill look like Winston Churchill!

 

[Rynocerous]

I similarly think that a 'war on terror' is incorrectly named. War is fought against armies and nations, not tactics. And Terrorism is a tactic.

Mike

Now that is something I agree with... As I have said on numerous occasions I supported Bush all the way along. The only thing I really disaggreed with was when he declared war on terrorism. No matter what we do, even if the Nations of the world all came together, we would still have terrorism. This is a thing that will never end, and can never be fought to its extinction.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Karazenpo]

Now that is something I agree with... As I have said on numerous occasions I supported Bush all the way along. The only thing I really disaggreed with was when he declared war on terrorism. No matter what we do, even if the Nations of the world all came together, we would still have terrorism. This is a thing that will never end, and can never be fought to its extinction.

Cheers,

Ryan

No, you won't Ryan but you can keep things in check. I'm a cop and have been for nearly three decades. In 1973 the community I work in was featured #3 in the country on drugs on the Johnny Carson Show, this is fact! We have worked hard over the years. Do we still have problems, absolutely, but we also keep things in check. Would you like the police dept. in your community to give up its fight on drugs and other crimes because of what you said about terrorism? Crime will never go away either so let the criminals go unchecked and rape our daughters, murder our sons and invade our homes, right? I don't think so because we will continue to keep it in check they, like the terrorists, are not going to take over! You don't roll over and die, not to get corny now but Patrick Henry once said; "Give me liberty or give me death", these words will never die!!!

 

[Rynocerous]

No, you won't Ryan but you can keep things in check. I'm a cop and have been for nearly three decades. In 1973 the community I work in was featured #3 in the country on drugs on the Johnny Carson Show, this is fact! We have worked hard over the years. Do we still have problems, absolutely, but we also keep things in check. Would you like the police dept. in your community to give up its fight on drugs and other crimes because of what you said about terrorism? Crime will never go away either so let the criminals go unchecked and rape our daughters, murder our sons and invade our homes, right? I don't think so because we will continue to keep it in check they, like the terrorists, are not going to take over! You don't roll over and die, not to get corny now but Patrick Henry once said; "Give me liberty or give me death", these words will never die!!!

I didn't say stop everything we are doing and let the world go on a rampage. All I said is that I disagreed with how Bush frased it. I didn't say we should sit back and watch as innocent civilians die. I am all for fighting terrorism, but you shouldn't declare war on terrorism because it is a never ending war.

Oh and on a different topic, whoever gave me negative reputation, I have no problem with that, that is why reputation is used, but I think insulting my intelegence is imature and childish. I really do not appreciate this, especially because it was on the opening post for this thread.

Sincerely,

Ryan W Guthormsen

 

[Phoenix44]

I think if we were serious about protecting our citizens from terror, we'd be taking a closer look at securing our own borders and institutions. I don't know what we're doing in Iraq, but I certainly don't see this war as protecting us from terror.

As for enlisting in the armed forces, I think Americans would STILL want to enlist to defend our country. The problem is that most Americans don't see the war in Iraq as "defending our country."

And, yes, many Americans feel betrayed by politicians who lie and manipulate to advance a political agenda. People are dying, and there's the widespread perception that the politicians just don't care.