NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this tends to be a claim thrown around alot by our Armed Forces and the justification for their what it is they do. However can one really say they "fought for our freedom?", while it might be argued they fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people and the women oppresed under the Tabliban in Afganistan, I fail to see how any of these actions protect our freedoms.

Surely our freedoms could be better served by the government (In Australia at least) listening to the some of the largest masses of portestors since the 60s.

Perhaps one could even go as far to say, that while these soldiers were off fighting those who stayed behind fought for our rights.


=============================
Posting rules
Please read.

I've decided that due to the nature of my opinion as stated above I will need to set some guidelines to avoid a falmewar.

1) If you are grossly offend I strongly urge you to wait a few moments, maybe even get a drink before posting.
2) Try to avoid sarcasim.
3) Avoid trivilising the tragic loss of life caused by this conflict.
4) Do not post anything purley to be outspoken.
5) Remain calm.
6) You may not like what someone else will right, but try to respect their right to say it.
7) Avoid grammar or spelling critquing.

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.
YES!!! jeez i am sick of my country "defending my freedom" by killing people in other countries that never attacked us. i also love how my freedom is somehow being defended by the conflict in Iraq, even though our likelihood of sustaining another terrorist attack has gone UP thanks to Bush's little Please-Love-Me-Daddy War. i suppose now i have the additional freedom of getting bombed by extremists who, for once, actually have a point.

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.
YES!!! jeez i am sick of my country "defending my freedom" by killing people in other countries that never attacked us. i also love how my freedom is somehow being defended by the conflict in Iraq, even though our likelihood of sustaining another terrorist attack has gone UP thanks to Bush's little Please-Love-Me-Daddy War. i suppose now i have the additional freedom of getting bombed by extremists who, for once, actually have a point.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.
YES!!! jeez i am sick of my country "defending my freedom" by killing people in other countries that never attacked us. i also love how my freedom is somehow being defended by the conflict in Iraq, even though our likelihood of sustaining another terrorist attack has gone UP thanks to Bush's little Please-Love-Me-Daddy War. i suppose now i have the additional freedom of getting bombed by extremists who, for once, actually have a point.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?

if that was the case, perhaps, though i would need to see some pretty compelling evidence that our protection would be improved enough to warrant the loss of life and money. however, i have absolutely no reason to believe it is the case with this war, and actually many reasons to the contrary...not the least of which is that we have been repeatedly lied to about the war by our leaders.

Bottle and Salishe both have important and justified points here. While I stand firmly by my belief that servicemen and women do in fact fight for the cause of freedom, I have difficulty justifying it in this war. In the past, this protection of freedom was clearly defined, such as countering the soviet threat in the cold war. In Iraq, I could probably come up with a valid claim about how what we are doing protects and defends freedom, but the argument would be tenuous at best. That is, of course, not to say that no good has come of this, but it leaves me to wonder "at what cost?" and how justified this protection might be. Unfortunately, I see this war going down the road to become "another Vietnam," though at least there one could easily see how we were protecting freedom.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.
YES!!! jeez i am sick of my country "defending my freedom" by killing people in other countries that never attacked us. i also love how my freedom is somehow being defended by the conflict in Iraq, even though our likelihood of sustaining another terrorist attack has gone UP thanks to Bush's little Please-Love-Me-Daddy War. i suppose now i have the additional freedom of getting bombed by extremists who, for once, actually have a point.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?That would be a good point if our freedom/security had been secured. However the western world now stands at a greater risk of terrorist attacks than prior to our campaigns in Afganistan and Iraq.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..

unfortunately the US already has its hands full with its own problems. education funding has been cut repeatedly, leading to embarassing reputations for American schools and students. in the richest country in the world there are tens of thousands of children suffering from malnutrition right now. one third of all female homicide victims are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends, and 85% of women who visit ERs are there because they were beaten by their romantic partner. in a study of 30 major American cities, over 80% of citizens felt that they were not safe walking through their city at night. fully 40% of American parents feel that the danger of their child being shot by a classmate is a serious and pressing concern, more so than the danger of their child contracting a serious illness (cancer was the example disease given).

it's like how when you're on a plane they remind you that you have to put your own oxygen mask on before you help anybody else, even if that other person is a child or your grandmother or whatever. you have to take care of yourself before you can be much good to others, and America simply has too many problems right now to be trying to fix other government and countries around the world.

We are fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. There are actually terror groups there or in the nearby Pakistan hills that we may eliminate.
Iraq is another story. The only terrorists there are the ones we are creating by our continued presence.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..

First of all: Europe does not do nothing to prevent casualties, terrorist attacks, etc. They still track down terrorists and potentially dangerous people, they do secure potential targets.

They are just very careful about interventions in foreign countries as these hold huge risks and costs, so the benefit from it should be high enough.
an intervention à la iraq:

-it costs a lot of money, possibly even more than planned (one of the risks: an intervention can always turn out to cost a lot more).
-Soldiers die, that's for sure. again the number of deaths can raise above all expectations.
-You will always hurt/kill innocent people, which is a bad thing.
-The people you are fighting and their allies tend to be more radical and agressive against you afterwards.
-In general, the people that allready consider you an enemy will become more extreme in this. The more or less neutral ones and your allies will be in favour if you have some solid, correct arguments for starting an intervention. if you don't have solid and correct arguments and you still start an intervention you will damage a lot of good or neutral relationships too.
-An intervention might take a lot longer than expected, which is not good for the deathtoll, the cost and the public opinion.
-You run the risk of creating an unstable country with a lot of people that hold a grudge against you.

the iraq mission certainly was not an example of a good intervention:
-it costs a lot more than expected.
-it has a high deathtoll. again higher than expected.
-it looks like it will take more time than expected.
-The risk of leaving behind an unstable iraq seems rather high.
-It has damaged the relations of the US with a lot of countries.

If the goal was 'to protect the americans' then it failed miserably:
-saddam did not pose a threat to american citizens.
-the intervention increased anti-america feelings, mostly in islamitic countries. This has only increased the chance of attacks against americans.


Again: Europe does what it thinks it has to do. Most of the times it thinks an intervention would not solve the problem, let alone that it will create other problems.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..ou're missing the point, increased domestic security stops terrorism at home and does not create new enemies. Intervention in other nation increases the risk of terrorist attack and create renewd/new enemies.

fighting FOR freedom FOR others, DEFENDING the freedom of OUR country. That freedom falls into jeopardy when we start getting hit by terrorists... the less terrorist attacks on our homeleand, the more freedom we get to keep... the less terror on our homeland, the less we have to worry about invasion by enemies.

Fighting terrorism away from home means we don't have to fight it when it's at home... seems like a simple concept to me.

The first Patriot Act came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9-11...

This act curtailed the freedom of the american people...

Later there was Homestead Security... Which seriously infringes on the right on privacy...

Its easy to make a case of the military action taking place now in Iraq will result in an increase in terrorist activity, and thus terrorst attacks on US ground...

Seeing how the 'original' terrorist attack (9-11) was used as an excuse to limit the freedom of the US citizen, it is not unlikely that if more terrorist attacks were to take place that this then would be used to curtail that freedom even farther.

So, it seems that instead of fighting for your freedom their actions will actually result in less freedom for the US citizen.

When you volunteer for Service, you in effect are trusting the Political Leadership to use you in the most effective manner to protect the Nation.
When I went in, the Oath included the statement "...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies both Foreign, and, Domestic..."

I understand that portion is no longer included, and hasn't been since 1994.

Do the Soldiers fight for your freedom? Those who bother to think about why they joined, sure.

The problem comes from the ones that joined to fulfill a Rambo Power-Fantasy, or the ones that joined because they wanted to go to college, or the ones that joined because they couldn't get a straight job in the World.

The Real threat to your freedom, comes from the ones that didn't join, and who can't be bothered to care about what's going on, the ones that vote "Party Line" without looking, or thinking. The ones that accept anything that supports what they see as their Political "Side", uncritically, or that attacks their Political Opponents and makes them look bad-again, uncritically.

Left or Right, the real threat to freedom are the Meatheads that don't bother to question what they're told by their "Leaders" and Idols in the Media.

The soldiers involved are being court-martialled under the UCMJ, they're being tried for War Crimes. If and when they are found guilty, some of them will be facing the Death Penalty for their actions, the rest will be facing some fairly nasty minimum terms in a prison system that Amnesty International protests annually like clockwork.
From the reports I've read about (and remember the MEdia is third-hand info), the investigation into those actions is several weeks old-it began long before the images were released.
The System should still be working-changes to military customs take a long time, with the images and tapes, it is fairly certain that the board will convey a "guilty" verdict, and given the public nature of the offenses, and the obvious repercussions (the beheading of an American), it's a short bet that the perpetrators will recieve maximum sentences.

Unfortunately, there is no currently available documentary evidence of the accusations levelled against Rumsfeld. Like most Political Scum, he's likely to skate, unless...

We are in no way shape or form defending American freedom in Iraq.
Our freedom was never under any kind of threat from Iraq.
What we are doing is trying to establish a democratic government to secure a steady oil supply, in an unstable Middle East.

Al-Qeada had no operatives in Iraq..they had no WMD's...or have you forgotten that?

So...no...we are most certainly NOT "defending" American freedoms in Iraq.
Our freedoms were never under attack from Iraq.

fighting FOR freedom FOR others, DEFENDING the freedom of OUR country. That freedom falls into jeopardy when we start getting hit by terrorists... the less terrorist attacks on our homeleand, the more freedom we get to keep... the less terror on our homeland, the less we have to worry about invasion by enemies.

Fighting terrorism away from home means we don't have to fight it when it's at home... seems like a simple concept to me.Actually that's we're you're wrong. By focusing our efforts on demestic security and international intelligence we can prevent terrorism without risking (as many) lives or creating a higher security threat.

I must agree that, in Australia's case at least, we are getting a very poor "return on investment" for our troops being present in Iraq.
Afghanistan I regard as completely justified, as there was no doubt that the state was sponsoring the Al Qaeda terrorist organisation.
But in Iraq, we were "conned" by the deceptive intelligence reports, irrespective of whether these were deliberately falsified or not.
Howard sees a "deputy sheriff" role as our best form of defence, believing that the US will come to our assistance when and if required.
This belief collapses into ruin the moment that the winds of isolationism begin to blow in the US.
And I am disgusted that our Australian armed forces are now having their reputation besmirched by association with the abuse, murder and torture allegations emerging in Iraq.
Iraq has never been in a position to pose a threat to Australia.
Now our presence there merely makes us a target for terrorists.

I find the claims by the Bush administration puzzling.
In many speeches to the American people and to the international community, he constantly berates the terrorists for desiring to 'destroy freedom'. This is false.
Terrorists do not fight to destroy freedom. Terrorists are fighting for their survival, the survival of their way of life and since their way of life has no official national backing; they turn to these desperate and horrific methods in frustration.
Civilians become the target of their intense anger and hatred. Civilians whos only crime is to be part of a nation whos culture is spreading like either an insidious cancer to be excised or a breath of life to invigorate a complacent world.
Were it not for their horrific, saddening and terrible acts in anger; their motives might be considered to be quite noble.

Do not take this the wrong way, I seek merely to provide an analysis undisturbed by irrational prejudices. True knowledge is the result of unbiased analysis....

I find the claims by the Bush administration puzzling.
In many speeches to the American people and to the international community, he constantly berates the terrorists for desiring to 'destroy freedom'. This is false.

Terrorists do not fight to destroy freedom. Terrorists are fighting for their survival, the survival of their way of life and since their way of life has no official national backing; they turn to these desperate and horrific methods in frustration.

Civilians become the target of their intense anger and hatred. Civilians whos only crime is to be part of a nation whos culture is spreading like either an insidious cancer to be excised or a breath of life to invigorate a complacent world.

Were it not for their horrific, saddening and terrible acts in anger; their
motives might be considered to be quite noble.

Do not take this the wrong way, I seek merely to provide an analysis undisturbed by irrational prejudices. True knowledge is the result of unbiased analysis....

Your dispassionate view of the situation is admirable. Still, I would ask you to further examine the views of the people in quesiton.

The 'way of life' that Al-queda seeks to preserve doesn't really exist anymore, and it is highly dangerous to force a regression of culture upon a people. Some might argue that they are attempting to create a vision of the past that is based on their own partial understanding of history. A golden age for their culture that has been over for more than a thousand years. Similar attempts to creat 'utopian' societies using ancient, outdated modles combined with modern influence have failed the world over with horrific consequences.

You are correct in that they are fighting against the cancer-like western culture that they see infringing upon them. However if they were defending their culture and bringing attention to their suffering at our hands, that would be one thing. They are however attempting to justify the slaughter of anyone from the west, without restrictions. Their actions and their lack of a suitible vision for their own people brand them as little more than brigands. They have no political goal other than the destruction of precived 'outside influences' that they personally dislike.

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.
YES!!! jeez i am sick of my country "defending my freedom" by killing people in other countries that never attacked us. i also love how my freedom is somehow being defended by the conflict in Iraq, even though our likelihood of sustaining another terrorist attack has gone UP thanks to Bush's little Please-Love-Me-Daddy War. i suppose now i have the additional freedom of getting bombed by extremists who, for once, actually have a point.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
Ah Salishe my friend, I have missed you. Invading Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and your attempt to link the two is unfortunate. I believe that this unprovoked war on Iraq has backfired and continues to get worse as the days go by. While worldwide terrorism decreased last year, attacks against American interests actually increased, and that was before the release of any info regarding the shameless treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

fighting FOR freedom FOR others, DEFENDING the freedom of OUR country. That freedom falls into jeopardy when we start getting hit by terrorists... the less terrorist attacks on our homeleand, the more freedom we get to keep... the less terror on our homeland, the less we have to worry about invasion by enemies.

Fighting terrorism away from home means we don't have to fight it when it's at home... seems like a simple concept to me.Actually that's we're you're wrong. By focusing our efforts on demestic security and international intelligence we can prevent terrorism without risking (as many) lives or creating a higher security threat.You can not "prevent" terrorism. All you can do is fight it. The question is, do you want to fight it here, or there?

by not provoking terrorism, you prevent it.

Provoking terrorism is exactly what the US is doing through its foreign policies.

by not provoking terrorism, you prevent it.

Provoking terrorism is exactly what the US is doing through its foreign policies.so... appeasing terrorism=prevention?

by not provoking terrorism, you prevent it.

Provoking terrorism is exactly what the US is doing through its foreign policies.so... appeasing terrorism=prevention?

No, it would seem like he said was, "Not provoking terrorsim = prevention".

I always thought it strange how American Freedom gets defended through invasions, bombings and the sponsoring of coups in weak poor countries. You'd think they would be better off concentrating on security at home and not provoking people outside. But no.
YES!!! jeez i am sick of my country "defending my freedom" by killing people in other countries that never attacked us. i also love how my freedom is somehow being defended by the conflict in Iraq, even though our likelihood of sustaining another terrorist attack has gone UP thanks to Bush's little Please-Love-Me-Daddy War. i suppose now i have the additional freedom of getting bombed by extremists who, for once, actually have a point.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
Ah Salishe my friend, I have missed you. Invading Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and your attempt to link the two is unfortunate. I believe that this unprovoked war on Iraq has backfired and continues to get worse as the days go by. While worldwide terrorism decreased last year, attacks against American interests actually increased, and that was before the release of any info regarding the shameless treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Missed you too CH...lol...oh..been meaning to get up that way..hear they have great Elk and deer hunting...when does season start....I black powder hunt..so do I have a select time of season to hunt up there?..Oh..err...mebbe I need to find out if you hunt first..lol...

Now..as to your post..you're absolutely right..Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...and I'm not sure if I ever did attempt to connect the two?...Iraq had been a terrorist-supporting nation under Saddam...his financial backing to Palestinian terrorists were clear cut examples..

Finally....I differ in that the war was handled badly...the war went off without a hitch...it is the peace that we've handled badly...I mean seriously..we coudn't have screwed up this reconstruction any better if we had it scripted by a hollywood writer...does it surprise you that I agree with you?...just remember to breathe deeply and it'll pass..lol...

fighting FOR freedom FOR others, DEFENDING the freedom of OUR country. That freedom falls into jeopardy when we start getting hit by terrorists... the less terrorist attacks on our homeleand, the more freedom we get to keep... the less terror on our homeland, the less we have to worry about invasion by enemies.

Fighting terrorism away from home means we don't have to fight it when it's at home... seems like a simple concept to me.Actually that's we're you're wrong. By focusing our efforts on demestic security and international intelligence we can prevent terrorism without risking (as many) lives or creating a higher security threat.You can not "prevent" terrorism. All you can do is fight it. The question is, do you want to fight it here, or there?

Where is "there"?
Afghanistan? You have a point. Even Iran; they still harborand support many terrorists.
Iraq? Don't think so. Al Qaeda and Saddam were at odds, whatever Bush says. All we know is that Saddam hated Israel, which does not make him a threat to our security.
If we want to punish the nations which provide the most financial support and personnel for terrorist groups, we go after Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The first Patriot Act came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9-11..

I know that I'm violating rules #4 and #7 here. But I think that it is important to note that the Act's official title is the USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.fincen.gov/pa_main.html). It is an acronym for something, check it out.

The first Patriot Act came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9-11..

I know that I'm violating rules #4 and #7 here. But I think that it is important to note that the Act's official title is the USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.fincen.gov/pa_main.html). It is an acronym for something, check it out.

Oh, well, so long as it's an acronym, then the loss of freedom and due process it mandates is okay then. :roll:

Your dispassionate view of the situation is admirable.

Many thanks.

The 'way of life' that Al-queda seeks to preserve doesn't really exist anymore, and it is highly dangerous to force a regression of culture upon a people.

In truth, that way of life never really existed, until now.
Islam used to be far more civilised before the age of nationalism transformed it and gave the terrorists an ideology to believe in. Their brand of Islamic Fundamentalism only recently evolved within the last 50 years.

You are correct in that they are fighting against the cancer-like western culture that they see infringing upon them. However if they were defending their culture and bringing attention to their suffering at our hands, that would be one thing. They are however attempting to justify the slaughter of anyone from the west, without restrictions. Their actions and their lack of a suitible vision for their own people brand them as little more than brigands. They have no political goal other than the destruction of precived 'outside influences' that they personally dislike.

Of course, I did say they were maddened by anger. An anger that has perverted and distorted their perceptions of the world and thus has lead them to psychotically crusade against all who come from a western culture and against all who promote or support or compromise with western values. They are maddened by anger that the true message of behind their actions, the supposed desired goals behind their crusade is lost.

Al Qaeda for example was formed in response to the American presence in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. With the Invasion of Iraq, America has effectively given in to the primary goals of the Al Qaeda organisation which was to remove the American military forces out of the country. Now that is complete, those who are members of Al Qaeda find themselves isolated by their previous deeds. They cannot fit into society because they are now criminals under the law. They now have no purpose as an organisation and all that is left is a directionless anger toward America and her allies fueled only now by their inability to reintegrate into society.

The first Patriot Act came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9-11..

I know that I'm violating rules #4 and #7 here. But I think that it is important to note that the Act's official title is the USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.fincen.gov/pa_main.html). It is an acronym for something, check it out.

Oh, well, so long as it's an acronym, then the loss of freedom and due process it mandates is okay then. :roll:

Did I write that Berkylvania? No! But, since your on the loss of freedom topic, how do you feel about the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)? The whole article.

The first Patriot Act came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9-11..

I know that I'm violating rules #4 and #7 here. But I think that it is important to note that the Act's official title is the USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.fincen.gov/pa_main.html). It is an acronym for something, check it out.

Oh, well, so long as it's an acronym, then the loss of freedom and due process it mandates is okay then. :roll:

Did I write that Berkylvania? No! But, since your on the loss of freedom topic, how do you feel about the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)? The whole article.

What about it? I think people have a right to have guns just as I have a right to not have one and campaign for them to voluntarily give up theirs. What's your point? I also don't think automatic weapons and bullets that can shoot all the way through a house are needed for a militia, but whatever.

it is a soldiers job to obey all lawful orders given to them. to fight, kill and be killed if necessary.

its OUR job to make sure they do none of those things for bad reasons.

its difficult to face the idea that we have killed iraqis and that our own soldiers have fought and died for a lie.

it brings tears to my eyes to even type it.

no they arent fighting and dying for our freedom

thats our fault

This editorial was written over a month ago and just after four civilian contractors were charred, hung, and photographed in Iraq. Because of this thread, this editorial deserves a revisit.


Up against fanaticism
Sunday, April 4, 2004
By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor (http://www.newsherald.com/viewpoint/phillucas/040404.shtml)

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too.

This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims.

Some readers didn’t like it.

Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don’t want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That’s just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can’t get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims. We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them.

One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more than 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeline Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resented the Crusades. Well, Madame Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let’s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland. Sound familiar?

Let’s consider the concept of a “long war.” Last time it was 200 years, give or take.

Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn’t fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That’s the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims – some live here – but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers, the millions gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on “diversity,” we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we’re so addled on Ritalin we wouldn’t know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn’t take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that’s the way it was and that’s the way it is.

But many Americans don’t get it.

That’s why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it’s a start.

Hey, Stableness - wouldn't it be better if we just left dealing with terrorism to the market?

So. The sack of constantinople and the eastern church was all about protecting our freedom of religion? :roll:

Hey, Stableness - wouldn't it be better if we just left dealing with terrorism to the market?

Hmmm, in what way do you mean? Like advocating for property rights and economic freedom in countries where these terrorists reside? Nah, the Left will never go for it, they hate the market. They're also xenophobic while at the same time exclaiming that the value human rights.

Never mind, I shouldn't solicit your opinion...you know, with you supposed to be working and all :P

Hey, Stableness - wouldn't it be better if we just left dealing with terrorism to the market?

Hmmm, in what way do you mean? Like advocating for property rights and economic freedom in countries where these terrorists reside? Nah, the Left will never go for it, they hate the market.

Never mind, I shouldn't solicit your opinion...you know, with you supposed to be working and all :P

Ha, ha! Glad you took it the right way. As for work, they can always sack me - I won't complain.

Well duh! I already knew they wanted to kill me.
I was trying to determine why they wanted to kill me.
To get into the minds of that clandestine kabal of fundementalist thought.

They're also xenophobic while at the same time exclaiming that the value human rights.


OK, this got added after my post. So... is that all the left? Come on, Stableness, you should know better than to make foolish generalisations like this. God, that would be like me saying that all the right are art-hating philistines...

In truth, that way of life never really existed, until now.
Islam used to be far more civilised before the age of nationalism transformed it and gave the terrorists an ideology to believe in. Their brand of Islamic Fundamentalism only recently evolved within the last 50 years.

Of course, I did say they were maddened by anger. An anger that has perverted and distorted their perceptions of the world and thus has lead them to psychotically crusade against all who come from a western culture and against all who promote or support or compromise with western values. They are maddened by anger that the true message of behind their actions, the supposed desired goals behind their crusade is lost.

Al Qaeda for example was formed in response to the American presence in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. With the Invasion of Iraq, America has effectively given in to the primary goals of the Al Qaeda organisation which was to remove the American military forces out of the country. Now that is complete, those who are members of Al Qaeda find themselves isolated by their previous deeds. They cannot fit into society because they are now criminals under the law. They now have no purpose as an organisation and all that is left is a directionless anger toward America and her allies fueled only now by their inability to reintegrate into society.

You've done your research as well! I'm glad someone else realizes some of the inner workings of the situation. You also express the information you've gleaned more precisely than I would have been able to. Have you studied the subject extensively? I'm curious to find out more about the early beginings the extremist movements in the region. For exemple; in the context of governmental participation and why these groups resorted to such means.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..

Yeah, Europe is responsible for the victims of the Serbs. :roll:

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..

You say that but how many times have you seen refugees from like Hatiti or Rwanda having survived escaping to America's shores being peppered sprayed right back onto their leaky craft and shoved back out into the sea?

fighting FOR freedom FOR others, DEFENDING the freedom of OUR country. That freedom falls into jeopardy when we start getting hit by terrorists... the less terrorist attacks on our homeleand, the more freedom we get to keep... the less terror on our homeland, the less we have to worry about invasion by enemies.

Fighting terrorism away from home means we don't have to fight it when it's at home... seems like a simple concept to me.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with defending YOUR freedom, or keeping YOUR homeland safe from terrorists.

Actually, by invading Iraq, terrorism against US interests has increased. The target on the back of American travellers has grown in size. Even the US State Dept. is advising Americans to leave Saudi Arabia, after a second attack there.

Sometimes "simple concepts", can mushroom into complex problems. Iraq is a classic example.

Bottle..think of it this way...if your freedom could be secured, or perhaps another terrorist attack like 9/11 averted because of an invasion would that not then be justified?
I realise you're not addressing me, but if you kill and injure tens of thousands of people, place tens of millions under dictatorial rule, and lose a few thousand yourself, in order to prevent a few terrorist attacks which kill a few hundred in total, then no, the current policy is not worth it.

This is why I respect Europe's policy more. An emphasis on home security, no interventionism, and a willingness to take the casualties.

You respect a nation that is willing to do nothing to prevent further casualties of it's citizens....sounds like appeasement to me. I guess that is why the situation in the Balkans was allowed to go on as long as it did..I'm sure the mass graves in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Croatia and Kosovo are thankful for European non-intervention policies..

Yeah, Europe is responsible for the victims of the Serbs. :roll:

Why not..they allowed massacres to go on in their very back yard...almost under their very noses Tuminiaa.....Europe had the ability to stop it..yet did nothing...I'd say yes they are partly responsible.