All you need to know

[Richard Masters]

If the United States wants to build bases on Saudi Arabian soil (an issue bin Ladin cited as a reason for 9/11), that's between the government of the United States and the government of Saudi Arabia. The opinion of an Islamo-fascist living in a cave in Afghanistan doesn't enter the equation. To pretend that bin Ladin's argument is anything besides prejudice is laughable.

What does Iraq have to do with Bin Laden?

But hey, maybe you're right. Slavery fueled the Civil War, so we should have just avoided the whole incident and let the South keep slaves, right?

Wrong. The South could have stopped enslaving people to avoid a war.

Desegregation fueled violence from the KKK, so maybe we should have just kept everything segregated, right?

We have jurisdiction over our laws. We don't have jurisdiction over the laws of foreign countries. Therefore, I contend we shouldn't bow to the KKK. But if you wish to bow to the KKK, go for it.

I want a president who's going to do what he thinks is best for this country, not one who's going to cave and adapt our foreign policy in fear of threats from suicidal lunatics.

Hmmm, what was the Patriot Act, if not a response to fear? What was the invasion of Iraq if not a response to fear?

Looks like you've got things backwards, my friend.

I'd rather have a president who is not going to surrender my freedoms in response to threats.

 

[Richard Masters]

I don't even agree with the context of our invasion, and I'm not stupid enough to believe our occupation is the cause of terrorism. Yes, it does turn people that way, but even before our occupation, terrorism was based on the sheer existence of the western world.

You contradict yourself.

Well, not as blanket as that, but violence has existed there for thousands of years before the US, odds are something else would be causing it if we weren't there.

Probably, but giving the Middle East legitimate excuses to hate us makes it harder to act with moral authority.

Sefarst believes it's only about our bases in Saudi Arabia. But Sefarst forgets our numerous coups d'etat around the world, and in particular, our intervention in the Middle East.

 

[Richard Masters]

I wonder, if there existed a bunch of crazy fanatical terrorists who targeted the West if we didn't have a military presence in the Middle East, would the heads of the Paulistas in this thread explode, trying to decide which set of religious fanatics to obey?

I'm sorry, but do Paulistas or Ronulans follow a particular religion? Or are you simply out of logical arguments? BTW, your "argument" is also a straw man.

 

[mortimer]

I'm sorry, but do Paulistas or Ronulans follow a particular religion?

Sometimes it seems like it.

Or are you simply out of logical arguments? BTW, your "argument" is also a straw man.

You may want to find out what a straw man is.

 

[Richard Masters]

Sometimes it seems like it.

You may want to find out what a straw man is.

It means you misrepresented my position in order to make your argument.

 

[mortimer]

It means you misrepresented my position in order to make your argument.

It was never represented as a response to your position, nor could it reasonably have been interpreted as such.

 

[steverino]

What does Iraq have to do with Bin Laden?

Here's another cliche bumper sticker: "Imagine no liberals"

Wrong. The South could have stopped enslaving people to avoid a war.

A) The South should have stopped enslaving people, black people if memory serves, without the threat of war.

B) There probably would have still been a war had slavery not existed.

 

[The Painter]

Wow, You guys have gotten way off track.

Back to Barack. Can someone explain this to me?

Obama: "We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq."

This is exactly what is being done NOW. Obama = Bush ???

 

[pbergeron]

Wow, You guys have gotten way off track.

Back to Barack. Can someone explain this to me?



This is exactly what is being done NOW. Obama = Bush ???

One difference that could be argued is that Bush is nation building - an attempt to spread freedom and democracy as a way of creating peace in the region. Counter-terrorism and base protection is not nation building.

 

[Thorn]

Military presence and military action are different things. What we are doing in, say, Germany is military presence. What we are doing in Iraq is military action.

 

[pbergeron]

One could argue that nation building and counter-terrorism activities are in the best interest of the US, but at what costs? I would probably be a little more opened to these ideas if not for the fact that we print more money, borrow from other nations, and allocate more of our tax dollars for such causes - then turn around and leave our borders wide open. Where's the logic in this?

 

[Thorn]

Now, this is where I encounter a moral conflict, or at least something resembling one. I am against the careless military action we've been responsible for over the last few years, however, I see counter terrorism as a perfectly legitimate use of the military. There is no doubt terrorist activity in most of the occupied middle eastern countries, and I believe intelligence operatives in countries with known terrorist connection is necessity. However, our mere presence does seem to stir up commotion, and implementation of things like torture do likely cause those who were neutral to our presence to become very much opposed.

It's all very complicated, but it means I cannot support any candidate who supports spontaneus removal of foreign countries. Not morally, as the costs are, at this point, definately not worth it.

 

[The Painter]

You are just using semantics. That is not an answer. Tell me how this;

Obama: "We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq."

is fundamentally different, in action, than what is happening now? I see no difference.

I cannot support any candidate who supports spontaneus removal of foreign countries

Which candidate is that????

 

[Sefarst]

What does Iraq have to do with Bin Laden?

I don't believe I have mentioned Iraq anywhere in this thread. Go back and read again.

We have jurisdiction over our laws. We don't have jurisdiction over the laws of foreign countries. Therefore, I contend we shouldn't bow to the KKK. But if you wish to bow to the KKK, go for it.

Our presence in Middle Eastern countries falls under the jurisdiction of those countries (or didn't you know that?). Therefore, if the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. allow our presence, why should we bow to the whims of bin Ladin?

Hmmm, what was the Patriot Act, if not a response to fear? What was the invasion of Iraq if not a response to fear?

Looks like you've got things backwards, my friend.

There's nothing wrong with responding and acting on our fears as long as the action is proactive and not a kneejerk response to just run away. It's to the United States' advantage to stay in the region and protect our interests. If that means drawing the ire of the lunatics in neighboring countries, so be it.

I'd rather have a president who is not going to surrender my freedoms in response to threats.

I would too, but this is irrelevant to our presence in the Middle East.

 

[Richard Masters]

I wonder, if there existed a bunch of crazy fanatical terrorists who targeted the West if we didn't have a military presence in the Middle East, would the heads of the Paulistas in this thread explode, trying to decide which set of religious fanatics to obey?

Your argument is based on the made-up assumption that Ron Paul supporters attribute terrorism ONLY to our current military presence. Second, you should know that I oppose our military presence first, and support Ron Paul second, ordinally (but not exclusively) speaking.

I don't know if your misrepresentation is intentional or if you are just misinformed.

 

[Richard Masters]

Here's another cliche bumper sticker: "Imagine no liberals"



A) The South should have stopped enslaving people, black people if memory serves, without the threat of war.

B) There probably would have still been a war had slavery not existed.

Not sure how any of the above contradicts what I said. Or maybe you are just agreeing with me?

 

[Richard Masters]

Wow, You guys have gotten way off track.

Back to Barack. Can someone explain this to me?



This is exactly what is being done NOW. Obama = Bush ???

I essentially agree. This is what is being done now.

 

[Richard Masters]

I don't believe I have mentioned Iraq anywhere in this thread. Go back and read again.

Then we are talking about different things, because my assertion is that our military presence in the Middle East, which includes our presence in Iraq fuels terrorism. Thus, our contracts with Saudi Arabia or Bin Laden's rhetoric, are of little consequence to my argument

Our presence in Middle Eastern countries falls under the jurisdiction of those countries (or didn't you know that?). Therefore, if the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. allow our presence, why should we bow to the whims of bin Ladin?

I'm not saying we should bow to anyone's whims. I'm saying we should stop provoking terrorist attacks. Our presence in Iraq is not the result of a mutual contract with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. It is the result of an illegitimate invasion (or didn't you know that?)

There's nothing wrong with responding and acting on our fears as long as the action is proactive and not a kneejerk response to just run away.

There is something wrong if it is provoking the very terrorist attacks you want to avoid.

It's to the United States' advantage to stay in the region and protect our interests. If that means drawing the ire of the lunatics in neighboring countries, so be it.

Do you go killing your neighbors because it's in your advantage to protect your interests? Wouldn't this make you a terrorist? Would it also be in your interests when your neighbors get fed up and kill your daughter in retaliation?

It may be worth some trade-offs, like access to oil and the maintenance of our military contracts with the Israeli defense industry, or the contracts with our own defense industry; That is, if you are willing to sacrifice more citizens to future terrorist attacks, to create more enemies, to sacrifice the lives of more soldiers, to raise more taxes, etc.

I would too, but this is irrelevant to our presence in the Middle East.

So, are you saying that if in 20 years a young Iraqi plans and successfully executes a major attack on the United States, and we once again "enhance" the PATRIOT ACT and restrict our own freedoms in the name of safety and start another war with Iran, that this is irrelevant to our presence in the Middle East?

 

[mortimer]

Your argument is based on the made-up assumption that Ron Paul supporters attribute terrorism ONLY to our current military presence. Second, you should know that I oppose our military presence first, and support Ron Paul second, ordinally (but not exclusively) speaking.

I don't know if your misrepresentation is intentional or if you are just misinformed.

I was not attempting to represent anyone's position, but merely posing a hypothetical. If you don't feel like answering the hypothetical, that's fine. The hypothetical was really aimed at HH, not you. I apologize for generalizing Ron Paul supporters in this way.

 

[Sefarst]

Then we are talking about different things, because my assertion is that our military presence in the Middle East, which includes our presence in Iraq fuels terrorism. Thus, our contracts with Saudi Arabia or Bin Laden's rhetoric, are of little consequence to my argument

So bin Ladin is of little consequence to a discussion about terrorism? Seeing as how bin Ladin is terrorist #1 as far as the US is concerned, and he gives as his reason for attacking us our presence in Saudi Arabia, I think that's relevant to bring up. Do you really think the Al Qaeda members in Iraq are fighting to protect the sovereignty of Iraq? They are there to kill Americans, our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan just make closer targets. Our presence there no more causes terrorism than does a black person living near KKK members causes racism.

I'm not saying we should bow to anyone's whims. I'm saying we should stop provoking terrorist attacks. Our presence in Iraq is not the result of a mutual contract with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. It is the result of an illegitimate invasion (or didn't you know that?)

Again, I don't buy the argument that terrorists are fighting us because they want to protect the sovereignty of Iraq. I think the majority of the people currently trying to attack us would still try to do so regardless of whether or not we had invaded Iraq.

There is something wrong if it is provoking the very terrorist attacks you want to avoid.

The most successful terrorist attack this country has ever seen was 9/11, and before that we had the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. All of those attacks were by the same organization, led and financed by the same person. That person has made it very clear what his reasons are for trying to kill us and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Do you go killing your neighbors because it's in your advantage to protect your interests? Wouldn't this make you a terrorist? Would it also be in your interests when your neighbors get fed up and kill your daughter in retaliation?

Is my neighbor Saddam Hussein in this analogy? If it is, my neighbor would be a genocidal maniac who was also leading me to believe he was trying to accumulate weapons of mass destruction.

It may be worth some trade-offs, like access to oil and the maintenance of our military contracts with the Israeli defense industry, or the contracts with our own defense industry; That is, if you are willing to sacrifice more citizens to future terrorist attacks, to create more enemies, to sacrifice the lives of more soldiers, to raise more taxes, etc.

Right now, leaving Iraq is out of the question. Leaving Iraq in the condition it's in would be tenfold worse than the decision to invade it. No one likes death, destruction, and high taxes, but I have no doubt the alternative would be much worse if we left.

So, are you saying that if in 20 years a young Iraqi plans and successfully executes a major attack on the United States, and we once again "enhance" the PATRIOT ACT and restrict our own freedoms in the name of safety and start another war with Iran, that this is irrelevant to our presence in the Middle East?

You were voicing your preference with regards to what kind of a president you would like when it comes to personal freedoms. That point, though I agree with you, is irrelevant to a discussion about our presence in the Middle East because I don't believe a president who effectively fights terrorism and a president who respects human rights and dignity are mutually exclusive.