Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="canon" data-source="post: 166712" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>I'm not a strong supporter of the UN. Those that slam the US use the false idea that we had no reason to go in and did so without UN approval. I use their own beliefs against them, in most instances because they really haven't take the time to do their own research. In the case of Afghanistan, that was a reaction to 9/11. After that, we took a pre-emptive position which placed Iraq squarely at the top of the list. And, since you saw my posts about the UN, I'm surprised you still see it as a crime. Everything we have done is in accordance with the UN Resolutions established to deal with the rogue leader Saddam Hussein.</p><p></p><p>The use of weapons in civilian areas aren't what anybody wants. I know you don't think so, but think about it: The US <em>wanted</em> support for the war, and knows civilian causalites diminishes that support. If ANYTHING, if you think they "just wanted war", and want it to continue... the idea would then be to <em>minimize</em> civilian deaths. The problem arises when the militaries use those civilians as human shields. I respect your position but have to take a slightly different approach to your question... I find it appaling that a country at war would stage their military in such locations as to <em>maximize</em> collateral damage.</p><p></p><p>Do I believe in pre-emptive war? I think the stakes are too high to wait for retalitory responses anymore. Do we have to lose a city like New York before we recognize something should have been done sooner? When you look at places like North Korea or Iran... do you really think we should wait until we're counting our own dead before stopping a <em>known</em> threat?</p><p></p><p>You had better believe I support pre-emptive war. </p><p></p><p>I understand the whole "we aren't the world's policeman" argument... and it is a valid argument. At the same time, I also recognize the world as a whole is subject to certain restraints and laws for the sake of world peace. When rogue nations become a threat to that peace, I'm all for eliminating the threat before they have a chance to maximize whatever damage they're out to do. It's like pre-tripping your package car. Why wait until a known deficience sends you careening into the back of a vehicle at a stoplight before giving it the attention it deserves?</p><p></p><p>Why is pre-emptive war a crime in your eyes, and failure to adhere to international law not? Punches <em>will</em> be thrown... pre-emptive strikes only changes who throws the <em>first</em> punch. Unfortunately, the punches we're talking about have the potential to bring down skyscrapers.</p><p></p><p>So no, I don't see it as "state sponsored terrorism" when we we're forced to fight on the battlefield of the enemy's choosing. Even then, we do our best to minimize collateral damage and step in to rebuild what we've damaged. We've brought democracy to an oppressed people. Admittedly, I'm not sure they really want it or understand the whole concept of freedom. </p><p></p><p>We use every measure to keep casualties restricted to military targets. I'm profoundly saddened when I hear a "smart bomb" went off course and hit an unintended target. At the same time I think "why can't they make these more reliable", I also think "why can't the leaders of these countries take the steps necessary to avoid war?" Waiting to see if you think North Korea or Iran are really peaceful nations being unfairly targeted for international concern.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm just a truck driver with the same impact on the world as you: the ability to vote. And I'll vote everytime for the person committed to keeping Amercia safe.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for keeping it insult free... it's just opinions on the internet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 166712, member: 8423"] I'm not a strong supporter of the UN. Those that slam the US use the false idea that we had no reason to go in and did so without UN approval. I use their own beliefs against them, in most instances because they really haven't take the time to do their own research. In the case of Afghanistan, that was a reaction to 9/11. After that, we took a pre-emptive position which placed Iraq squarely at the top of the list. And, since you saw my posts about the UN, I'm surprised you still see it as a crime. Everything we have done is in accordance with the UN Resolutions established to deal with the rogue leader Saddam Hussein. The use of weapons in civilian areas aren't what anybody wants. I know you don't think so, but think about it: The US [I]wanted[/I] support for the war, and knows civilian causalites diminishes that support. If ANYTHING, if you think they "just wanted war", and want it to continue... the idea would then be to [I]minimize[/I] civilian deaths. The problem arises when the militaries use those civilians as human shields. I respect your position but have to take a slightly different approach to your question... I find it appaling that a country at war would stage their military in such locations as to [I]maximize[/I] collateral damage. Do I believe in pre-emptive war? I think the stakes are too high to wait for retalitory responses anymore. Do we have to lose a city like New York before we recognize something should have been done sooner? When you look at places like North Korea or Iran... do you really think we should wait until we're counting our own dead before stopping a [I]known[/I] threat? You had better believe I support pre-emptive war. I understand the whole "we aren't the world's policeman" argument... and it is a valid argument. At the same time, I also recognize the world as a whole is subject to certain restraints and laws for the sake of world peace. When rogue nations become a threat to that peace, I'm all for eliminating the threat before they have a chance to maximize whatever damage they're out to do. It's like pre-tripping your package car. Why wait until a known deficience sends you careening into the back of a vehicle at a stoplight before giving it the attention it deserves? Why is pre-emptive war a crime in your eyes, and failure to adhere to international law not? Punches [I]will[/I] be thrown... pre-emptive strikes only changes who throws the [I]first[/I] punch. Unfortunately, the punches we're talking about have the potential to bring down skyscrapers. So no, I don't see it as "state sponsored terrorism" when we we're forced to fight on the battlefield of the enemy's choosing. Even then, we do our best to minimize collateral damage and step in to rebuild what we've damaged. We've brought democracy to an oppressed people. Admittedly, I'm not sure they really want it or understand the whole concept of freedom. We use every measure to keep casualties restricted to military targets. I'm profoundly saddened when I hear a "smart bomb" went off course and hit an unintended target. At the same time I think "why can't they make these more reliable", I also think "why can't the leaders of these countries take the steps necessary to avoid war?" Waiting to see if you think North Korea or Iran are really peaceful nations being unfairly targeted for international concern. I'm just a truck driver with the same impact on the world as you: the ability to vote. And I'll vote everytime for the person committed to keeping Amercia safe. Thanks for keeping it insult free... it's just opinions on the internet. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top