McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 07:16 PM by Parabol
Here's what I wrote...

Originally posted by Parabol
I have a problem with it because that's exactly what they said about Iraq. They had WMD's and were a threat to America because of their ties to Al Qaeda. Both of which were admitted to being false. The idea of pre-emptive war is for dictators and despots. People are building arms and tension against us because of our actions. If we weren't so concerned with snuffing out anything that disagrees with us maybe certain people wouldn't have a reason to hate us.


and then your response...


Originally posted by centurion1211
One of the more foolish and naive posts I've ever read. Did you get that from a recent sociology lecture?


I'm sure it's one of the worst you've read, welcome to the internet. No I didn't get it from a sociology lecture, my degree is in psychology.


Worse, you would have the U.S. give up the right and responsibility to its citizens to preemptively (only if necessary) defend itself?


Take out the word preemptively and I agree with you.


And that part about the rest of the world being armed only because of the U.S.? Another example of the revisionist history drivel that passes for education these days.


It's not the rest of the world, just the part of the world against us.

Who trained Bin Laden, the Taliban, and the related mujaheddin to fight against Russia?
Who supported Iran in it's war against Iraq, and overthrew their government?
Who switched sides and helped Iraq after our replacement leader was driven from the country?
Who gave Iraq the gas Saddam used to kill the Kurds in the north?
Who gave Iraq the technology to build SCUD missiles and their launchers?

I could go on, but these are some of the most obvious. So yes, I would say we have helped those who wish to kill us now.


Like I said, foolish and naive ...


See, you really didn't say much, just told me I was wrong.


reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 07:33 PM by Comsence2075

It's not the rest of the world, just the part of the world against us.

Who trained Bin Laden, the Taliban, and the related mujaheddin to fight against Russia?
Who supported Iran in it's war against Iraq, and overthrew their government?
Who switched sides and helped Iraq after our replacement leader was driven from the country?
Who gave Iraq the gas Saddam used to kill the Kurds in the north?
Who gave Iraq the technology to build SCUD missiles and their launchers?

I could go on, but these are some of the most obvious. So yes, I would say we have helped those who wish to kill us now.



Well this I can not try and refute, because it is true. I do believe in blowback in the actions we take. However, we can not just lie down. We do have a serious threat posed against us by radical terrorists.

People will try and make comparisons to other conflicts such as the cold war and say it was the same, it was not.

This is a new kind of battle; a sneaky, deadly, and determined enemy.

I think people need to wake up. I just pray something like 9/11 NEVER happens again. Although I am worried if a democrat wins the election, they will back down and admit, "defeat." This will surely hurt us much more in the long run with the loss of many more innocent lives. I also feel stronlgy that many of the people here that are so against protecting our country are doing so because they do not believe the story for 9/11 in the first place so they see it all as pointless.

I honestly may have voted against the invasion of Iraq if I was a politician in 2001 and after. Now, we have taken down a dictator that kept some terrorists out of his country. If we pull out and leave now due to some liberal agenda, we will have severe issues to deal with.

I also would like to point out that democrats including Obama are taking McCain's "100 year" comment completely out of context. He was not talking about staying at war for 100 years. People that attempt to spin it that way need to go find the transcript or the town hall meeting video.


reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 08:23 PM by Parabol
Preemptive action is not defense, it is an attack.

I just needed to clear that up, to say that I'm against preemptive action doesn't mean I'm against defending our country from harm. I believe that we need a good reason, a reason which literally exists in reality.

I think we all need to reexamine our criteria for defense and action. What do we feel would require the action? Maybe we actually agree about what level of threat is required, but disagree on the actions of our current president and possible successor in McCain.

Do you want McCain defining preemptive when he has little to no understanding of middle eastern culture, religion (an enormous part of their daily lives and beliefs, a must know for diplomacy), or affiliations. Here he is saying that the Sunni and Al Qaeda have close ties. You can't generalize an entire sect of a religion, as not just terrorists, but belonging to the group we are led to believe carried out 9/11. It's basic knowledge and tact. Or here he is, unable to answer a basic question about his economic plan. However, I'm not naive or foolish enough to believe the President does his own research and makes all of the decisions. It's not all about the POTUS, it's about government policy or belief that carries on, which I'll say this about...

When my government fails to see 9/11 coming, fails to respond during 9/11, lies to the country about reasons for war, still fails to find those who did it, takes away my rights to protect me from the people they weren't able to protect me from in the first place...

Damn, I feel like I can go on and on, and I'm honestly not trying to be a nutjob here, i don't tie this is NWO or anything, but something is wrong. Ok, I can't tell you exactly what, but we are being lied to.

The way I see it there are two basic options here. Is our government inept and incapable of stopping something like 9/11? Is it's intelligence gathering so poor that we 100% believed Iraq had WMD's and that we knew where they were, when we obviously did not? Did they really not understand how long the war would drag on because of the fighting conditions, or political and social culture? I can accept that the government is still comprised of humans, as flawed as I am, and that sometimes things go wrong. But really? Really? Before 9/11 we were on top of the world and now we're in a war we can't win, our dollar and economy are sinking, and our government is so worried about more terrorism, despite no attacks on American soil since 9/11, that it feels monitoring the private lives of it's citizens is necessary. The second option is that unknown motives and agendas are guiding these events.

It could be huge or it could be a few people's whim. I don't know, but I don't think it matters. I believe in secrecy for national security, but I don't agree with how they chose to define it. Why is Bush so secretive? Maybe he's just a bit paranoid and needs the comfort of security or maybe he's the anti-christ, it's a pretty big spectrum.

Part of the reason that politicians 'dance' around with their words is because the want to retain the power of definition. Preemption is not defense, it's an attack. Think about the definitions of attack and defend. They say you can consider an attack, defense, if you thought they were going to attack first. Defense may be the intention, but it's still an attack. Think of how broadly the word terrorism has been used.

I don't want to be one of these crazy protesters always mad about something. I don't want to believe secret powers run the government or that I'm heading to facist slavery, unless 2012 gets us first The thing is, something has changed and it's not doing too well for us now. And when I can see that we've been lied to, not just political lies, but ones that cost people their lives, it makes me curious. I say curious because I want to research or discuss a topic before get angry over nothing. And really I'm sort of confused. I don't know which way to go with it. Like with 9/11, I don't subscribe to any theory in particular but something isn't right about what we've been told. Most of that is based on the handling of it's investigation or oddities within the government. I'm sort of trailing off here so I'll end with this.

If you disagree with anything i've said or have answers to my questions, by all means, share. I'm open to logical debate, and if you prove me wrong or change my thoughts then you've helped me refine one of my beliefs. Have a great one.


reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 08:42 PM by Parabol
Originally posted by Comsence2075

However, we can not just lie down. We do have a serious threat posed against us by radical terrorists.


How do we know that? We haven't had a single attack since 9/11. Could things like the Patriot Act and increases in security have caused this, possibly, do I think this is the reason, no. I think our presence in Iraq is a big part of that. Anybody who wanted to fight the Americans could now reach us without crossing an ocean. And I don't logically understand how leaving Iraq will provide them with a paradise to flourish in and amass their forces (I don't think you made the earlier reference). They could do that anywhere they want, it's not as if Iraq is the only place they can meet up. It's just convenient that we're in the country and it's without a well organized police or military. I understand this sort of contradicts the 'provide them with a paradise' but according to our government there are a lot of countries more than happy to harbor terrorists.

I know there are people who want to kill us, but how do we, normal people like you and I, truly know how large the threat of those people is to us? Because they tell us? I know they don't always lie but we know they don't always tell the truth. It's just hard to say either way, so when we start assuming the worst... then what? We get our freedoms locked down, just in case, we preemptively attack, just in case... It's this philosophy of assuming the worst that really bothers me.


I also feel stronlgy that many of the people here that are so against protecting our country are doing so because they do not believe the story for 9/11 in the first place so they see it all as pointless.


My previous post talks about my 9/11 stance, which is basically something is weird about the whole thing. I think we should protect our country against real threats. We can't find Bin Laden, we killed Saddam then said Iraq didn't have 9/11 ties or Al Qaeda ties, the Taliban are apparently growing again, and .. um, yeah. So who did it? Moussaui? Some other random name? I'm not screaming conspiracy, i'm just saying we look a bit confused.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^