Why I Support Our Troops

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 15:49
VIEWED: 13777
PAGE 7 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:44 AM

Quote:
Saddam Hussein was in GROSS VIOLATION of UN res 687

Specifically, how?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

OPUS

Friday, July 29, 2005 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Opus- Many people have (rightly!) accused me of perservation: a behavioral issue that coincides with autism and other syndromes. Thanks for hanging in with me for so long through my perservative phase.

The definition of terrorism/ terrorist has logical extensions. Any organization or group that threatens to use WMD on innocent civilians is guilty of terrorism. Any organization or group that harms non-combatants to instill a sense of fear is guilty of terrorism. Because even terrorists can create a fine-sounding rationale (freedom) or historical justification (to avenge the ____________massacre) those definitions apply regardless of stated purpose or temporal sequence ("who started it"). It follows that USA threats to nuke Mecca, threats to attack "Muslims", or threats to invade bystander nations would be rightly perceived by the targets and most observers as terrorism.

We know what effect terrorism has on us. Why would we expect that engaging or threatening to engage in the same behavior would have a different effect on others?

First a correction, the USA didn't threaten to nuke mecca, one congressman on a radio show made that off the cuff statement, it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us. The fact that some muslim leaders will preach that doesn't make it so.
Their feelings about us are inevitably tied to our support of Isreal regardless of what we do or say, and I think boiling it down to being as simple as think about their feelings/reaction is a tad naive.
At some point you have to realize you have enemies and treat them as such. That doesn't automatically mean going to war.
If bystander nations are getting involved in a US action, against the US, any threats against them are justified and not terrorism.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:59 AM

Quote:
it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us.

But there is a significant minority doing just that, even people in this thread. And the Bush administration has not show a great deal of selectivity in pursuing ONLY those who've acted against us. According to several reports, they're planning to bomb Iran in response to any unrelated terrorist attack. Can we assure Iran that we would never do that, given our invasion of Iraq?

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:59 AM

Opus wrote:

Quote:
First a correction, the USA didn't threaten to nuke mecca, one congressman on a radio show made that off the cuff statement, it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us. The fact that some muslim leaders will preach that doesn't make it so.

But see-and I'm not pointing fingers at you here-many folks say this sort of thing all the time, although you cant have it both ways. You want to say that when one of our leaders (and lets not have any bones about it, a congressman is a leader) says we should nuke Mecca, it's just one guy. When one cleric says we should nuke Washington, you say it's indicative of the entire religion and people in the MidEast. By a leader (ours) saying we should vaporize Mecca, other people worldwide say, the US hates all Muslims. We try to say no, it's just one guy, but no one is really listening by that point. It's the same with them. One cleric says kill Americans, we say all arabs are bad, we should exterminate them. I hear this all the time at work, and even school, where I would most expect not to- 'they should just nuke them all.'
That congressman should have been publicly criticized by the administration, if not asked to resign. But we say no, he didn't mean it, he was just 'being philosophical,' and we lose points with the arab world that we didnt have to begin with. There are some jobs in the world where an 'off the cuff' remark should cost you your job, and government is one of them. Teachers, police, and other civil servants that make casual kinds of remarks like that find themselves fined, suspended, or fired - why dont we hold our elected officials to the same standards?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

OPUS

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us.
But there is a significant minority doing just that, even people in this thread. And the Bush administration has not show a great deal of selectivity in pursuing ONLY those who've acted against us. According to several reports, they're planning to bomb Iran in response to any unrelated terrorist attack. Can we assure Iran that we would never do that, given our invasion of Iraq?

If you're saying there are people in this country who want to go after any and all muslims, I agree, although what significant minority are you talking about? Are you saying government officials? If so who, and where did they state something like that? Or are we talking about just run of the mill folks who have no say in foreign policy. I would also point out the dire predications of violence against muslims in the US after 9/11 never occured.

There are reports saying we're going to bomb everyone, reports such as that, if they originate in the middle east usually have a zionist conspircy angle attached to it. The US has contingency plans drawn up to bomb pretty much everyone. Before you believe whatever reports you've heard I would suggest you look up some info about the protest in Iran from the younger generation against the government, and consider whether the US might figure they would be better off just waiting to see if the current government ends up being deposed.

OPUS

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Opus wrote:
Quote:
First a correction, the USA didn't threaten to nuke mecca, one congressman on a radio show made that off the cuff statement, it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us. The fact that some muslim leaders will preach that doesn't make it so.

But see-and I'm not pointing fingers at you here-many folks say this sort of thing all the time, although you cant have it both ways. You want to say that when one of our leaders (and lets not have any bones about it, a congressman is a leader) says we should nuke Mecca, it's just one guy. When one cleric says we should nuke Washington, you say it's indicative of the entire religion and people in the MidEast. By a leader (ours) saying we should vaporize Mecca, other people worldwide say, the US hates all Muslims. We try to say no, it's just one guy, but no one is really listening by that point. It's the same with them. One cleric says kill Americans, we say all arabs are bad, we should exterminate them. I hear this all the time at work, and even school, where I would most expect not to- 'they should just nuke them all.'
That congressman should have been publicly criticized by the administration, if not asked to resign. But we say no, he didn't mean it, he was just 'being philosophical,' and we lose points with the arab world that we didnt have to begin with. There are some jobs in the world where an 'off the cuff' remark should cost you your job, and government is one of them. Teachers, police, and other civil servants that make casual kinds of remarks like that find themselves fined, suspended, or fired - why dont we hold our elected officials to the same standards?

Can you name more than one government official who's made that statement, or something similar?
There's more than one Iman preaching kill all the infidels/west/Americans and they were preaching it long before 9/11. A whole sect of the religion is based on wiping out everyone who doesn't believe like them.
The comparrison is hardly equal.
I would recommend that you look at the reaction of conservative pundits, especially in the blogosphere to the repub congressman's statement, everyone did condem it.
All those jobs you mentioned used their mechinisms for dealing with their people, the method for the government is called not re-electing him.
Losing points with the Arab world, muslim or not, as long as the US supports Israel they'll hate us, period, regardless of any other action we take.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 29, 2005 11:57 AM

Opus- Within the space of about one post you said- "there are reports that we plan to bomb just about everyone" and "Can you name more than one government official who's made that statement? [nuke Mecca]" I'm going to link that with Hero's statement that in fact we DO have contingency plans to bomb just about everyone. The mere fact that we are capable of bombing everyone sets the whole world on edge. In order to fundamentally understand how the world reacts to us, you need to mentally and emotionally remove yourself from the magic circle and imagine those crosshairs aimed AT YOU. Until you shift perspective you will never ever understand. And that lack of understanding means that you will fail to perceive the significance of even YOUR OWN statements- let alone the statements and actions of our government.

So as an outgrowth of the comfort that you find in all of our nukes, bombs, missiles, and guns, you couldn't remember who ELSE might have said anything about using nukes besides one unimportant official. I keep harping on perspective because, believe me, if you already felt fundamentally threatened, even ONE statement from a USA official would set off klaxons and be carved in memory. Okay- have you remembered that other official yet?

How about.... Bush himself? Starting with the "axis of evil" and ending with his latest "we will keep ALL options on the table" Bush threatens Iran regularly with everything including tactical nukes. I don't know about you, but if I were Iranian I would feel threatened, and rightfully so. He's also threatens Syria pretty regularly. Combine that with our very recent history of two Mideast invasions which deposed two governments and killed tens of thousands, ANY Mideast nation and her citizens will rightfully feel those crosshairs on the backs of their heads. The only step left is for the Mideast provide for itself the explanation- the reason why- they are constantly being threatened by the United States. The cynics in the Mideast believe that it's all about oil. But our support of Israel- which has nothing to do with oil- lends credence to the idea that we simply hate Muslims. And it's a hard point to argue because the data is pretty much all around them.

And BTW- you may quibble about the EXACT nature of Bush's threats (he didn't SAY tactical nukes- altho that was clearly the context of that statement) or whether Bush's invasions were justified or whether there is a whole group of people in the Administraion aiming to wipe out other Mideast nations (there is). That might fly in the USA, but it's that crosshair problem again- those self-comforting little stories just don't fly in the Mideast, especially when you're picking bodies up off the street every hour.

OPUS

Friday, July 29, 2005 2:54 PM

Your complaint then is that because the US has the ability to defend itself against ANYONE, that, that in itself is a threat? Self defense?
Or simply that we're powerful? We should base our defense policy on how the rest of the world feels?
That's sucide, the point of having a strong military with the willingness to use it is to lessen the likely hood of being attacked. To not have plans ready to implement would be imcompetence. ANY military, from ANY country does the exact same thing.

The US's policy for engagement has always been everything, including nukes are on the table, with everyone. Should the policy be,if you attack us we won't ever use the strongest weapon in our arsonal?
If countries hostile to the US feel threatened by that, that's the point.
Syria and Iran as well as North Korea are countries already hostile to the the US,look at their actions and ask why WE would see them as evil. You speak as if until Bush came along they had been our friends.
Name names of all the people in the administration who want to wipe out middle east nations and where they've stated it as policy. If you can't then it's speculation and opinion.
The large muslim population in the US is proof enough of our policy regarding muslims as a group. One way countries in the mid-east hold power is by portraying the US as hating ALL muslims, and nothing we do or say will change that. It's one of their main pillers for holding power.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:10 PM

Quote:
Your complaint then is that because the US has the ability to defend itself against ANYONE, that, that in itself is a threat? Self defense?
Or simply that we're powerful? We should base our defense policy on how the rest of the world feels?

How can anyone so totally misinterpret what I'm saying? Please, please, please re-read my post. I'll give it a half-day or so before I reply.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 29, 2005 7:26 PM

Ok. Let's both take deep breaths and relax: me so I don't go off on a rant, and you so that you're prepared to listen with an open mind.

Ready now?

It goes without saying that if we're attacked, we should- and we will- defend ourselves to whatever level necessary. But Bush wasn't talking about what we would do if Iran attacked us. Bush was talking about a pre-emptive strike. The Iraq occupation is a stark example that a nation doesn't even need to be a credible threat to incur invasion.

We ARE the 800-lb gorilla. That kind of strength can be reassuring to friends and attractive to neutrals provided that it comes with self-control and self-assurance. But a panicked 800-lb gorilla is a dangerous thing, and if we blunder around threatening and destroying nations that have not attacked (or even threatened) us, then we become a source of danger and fear to everyone- not just our enemies.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE