Why I Support Our Troops
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 15:49
VIEWED: 13777
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.
The reason they do not threaten us is they know they would lose. So they support terrorists. They give them training areas and shelter from nations looking for them.
So no they are not going to say anything against us they are going to harbor the folks who do and supply them with weapons and training. And these are the folks who are killing our troops. Are setting bombs off among innocent civilians.
So they are the hidding place for these people and we should sit down with them and ask them to cooperate ask them to take action against the terrorists in their country.
I think the reason most of those supporting the war are doing so because they are tired of this situation.
So I'd rather be feared than considered an easy mark and that is what I see the oppostion to this war as being. Folks who want to play nice with the folks who would open us up like a fish.
TANSTAAFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And the prize for NOT GETTING THE POINT GOES TO
Quote:"They"? Our lack of specificity was exactly my point, which you demonstrated brilliantly and repeatedly. Special bonus goes for referring to two entirely different sets of "they" in one sentence, without making any distinction between "them". [applause]
The reason they do not threaten us is they know they would lose. So they support terrorists. They give them training areas and shelter from nations looking for them.
Quote:*Which happen to be on foreign soil at the moment. Or do you truly expect that we should be able to invade any nation on any pretext at any time and not meet resistance? Well, of course you do. And thank you for masterfully demonstrating lack of perspective.
So no they are not going to say anything against us they are going to harbor the folks who do and supply them with weapons and training. And these are the folks who are killing our troops*.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I've been trying to find a quote where Bush was saying we were going to pre-emptively attack Iran, I did find where I think one of your quotes came from. If it is, then you forgot to include the entire statement.
"(CBS/AP) President Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program after discussing the issue with European allies.
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Mr. Bush said. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/22/world/main675340.shtml
So we have a country hostile to the US, who sponsors terrorism and is developing nuclear weapons and letting them know we're willing to act against them is us terrorising them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The whole notion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a lot like those infamous WMD in Iraq- ie. non-existant. Would it surprise you to know that Pakistan beats Iran in terms of sponsoring terorism and in spreading nuclear technology?
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
* Chrisisall pokes his head in to make a comment, which is instantly taken off in the crossfire. It might have been funny, but headless Chrisisalls make even lamer jokes than headed ones. He'll return once this has healed*
Chrisisall-bot
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:The whole notion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a lot like those infamous WMD in Iraq- ie. non-existant. Would it surprise you to know that Pakistan beats Iran in terms of sponsoring terorism and in spreading nuclear technology?
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
Contingency plans, they also have them for bombing Russia and China and. and and and...planning ahead. Nothing new.
Regarding the rest of the article and the statements and claims, please give the source. Are we talking a conventional media source,or a partisan site, which is it?
Iran is developing a long range ballistic missile,the Shahab-3. They're going to put what type of warhead on it? Conventional? They hide a supposedly peaceful nuclear program? A country awash in more oil than it could use wants to build nuclear power plants why?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The quote is from the American Conservative hardcopy. I accessed a prtion of it here: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163Opus-
If you notice, Cheney is asking for contigency plans for a UNPROVOKED NUCLEAR ATTACK. Is an unprovoked nuclear attack a contingency plan we SHOULD be developing? If so- what kinds of effects, both positive and ngative, would this have?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris-- HAHAHAHA!! But D*MN, give me credit man- I'm trying to be as nice as I can! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ
Quote:Well, SignyM made his point and no one replied. So I thought this might be a good time to pursue the topic you brought up. As you may recall, no 'massive stockpiles' of WMDs or programs were found in Iraq. At that point Iraq was shown to have never been a threat to US territory or self-rule. As to the US acting on the UN's behalf:
Rue, I am not going to turn this thread into another Iraqi WMD rehash.
Quote:Remember too, the UN was in Iraq conducting inspections and carrying out UN business with Iraq when the US attacked.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
...
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The credits have been deposited to your account. even bigger
Originally posted by SignyM:
give me credit man- I'm trying to be as nice as I can!
Chrisisall, healing nicely
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME