Invasion of Iraq good or bad for War on Terror?

[Perinquus]

Ice, Per doesnt distinguish between action and intent for people who dont like the US....so probably the answer is yes.

You know, if there's one thing I really can't stand, it the repetition of strawman distortions of my arguments after I have already pointed out they are strawman distortions. Have the goddamn integrity to represent my arguments honestly.

Saying terrorists like Osama Bin Laden "don't like" the US is like saying Adolf Hitler "didn't like" Jews. Can you honestly not see the difference between foreigners who simply dislike the US, and terrorists like Osama Bin Laden who dedicate their lives to killing Americans, who devote all their treasure and all their energy to it? Take the rose colored glasses off.

[Keevan_Colton]

Can you see the problem with assasinating Hitler in 1938 before he commited these atrocities?

Hindsight is 20-20 you moron.

[Perinquus]

Alright, taking all that shit into account, what the fuck matter is it of the US to go kill them then?

If for example the british government shot everyone that gave money to the IRA in boston etc, I suspect you and the others over there might get a bit pissy about it.

Let's not get stupid about this, shall we?

It was simply not within the realm of possibility for the British to invade the United States and end such support for terrorism. If for no other reason, because the UK couldn't beat the US in a war if they had ten times the military resources they have. Moral and ethical considerations are not the only ones in the world, you know. There are practical considerations as well. Every policy should be firmly based in what is possible. Or do you not understand this.

It was, however, perhaps within the realm of possibility to attack Libya, destroy the IRA training camps, and let Quaddafi know in no uncertain terms that providing shelter for these IRA shitbags in future will draw harsh reprisals.

[Edi]

I never claimed that military action alone will "solve" the problem of terrorism. But when a country can be proven to be harboring or supporting terrorists, I think military action against that country is appopriate. I do not think we should wait until after the next 9-11 to use military force.

Yes, in such blatant cases it is appropriate, and well, gee, the US stomped the Taliban government of Afghanistan flat as a pancake while most of the world either helped or approved in any case. You have yet to offer a single shred of evidence for why the war in Iraq (the subject of this thread) and the war in Afghanistan (an unrelated subject) were remotely analoguous, so I'm just going to accept your concession.

So what should he have done? Accepted having bin Laden handed over and locked him up indefinitely without a trial, giving a visible martyr for the AQ cause and getting roundly castigated by the rest of the world? Or accepted and quietly have him killed, with the same results?

And this would have been worse that letting him plan and execute the 9/11 attack how?

You're using hindsight on a situation when bin Laden's significance was almost completely unknown, and when that situation was assessed with the information at hand at the time, it was the correct decision. In the perfect world of hindsight, things are different, but we did not have prescience back then.

And now Kerry has stated that he wants to do what Clinton did - treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. That approach cost over 3,000 Americans their lives on 9/11/01. It's a recipe for disaster.

No, incompetent intelligence handling, dismissal as impossible of the late 1990s plot to use airliners as terrorism vehicles (which should have clued in the intel services that it could happen) and absolutely laughable, fucked up airport "security" in the name of convenience (which made it especialy possible in America) was what killed 3000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, and saying anything else is just making excuses for those whose job it was to think about this kind of things.

Like hell it is. When you have opportunities to get your hands on a proclaimed enemy, or have him quietly assassinated, but don't because you are not thinking in military terms, but only in law enforcement terms, and that enemy then goes on to carry out a massive and costly attack against you, your approach was the wrong one. If Bin Laden had been treated as a deadly military enemy back in '95 or '96, and taken out, there is a good possibility that 9/11 never would have happened.

See above about hindsight. Given the information at hand at that time, the decisions they made were correct. You have no argument.

If you are not extraditing a terrorist because you don't think you have legal grounds, and that terrorist then goes on to kill large numbers of Americans, your approach failed.

Iceberg already dealt with your extradition argument, so why don't you quit flogging a dead horse?

And lots of innocent people paid for it with their lives.

Sorry, but it was not that government decision that cost them their lives. The actions of US government and US businesses did that for a large part, see below shortly.

Sure, other things could have been done to improve security. There are all kinds of things that conceivably could have foiled the 9/11 plot, and some of them are indeed law enforcement issues.

Yes, other things related to the most basic, elementary security issues that were not done and had been in use in Europe and the rest of the world for decades to prevent exactly the kind of action (airplane hijacking) that made the WTC attack possible. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE. None whatsoever.

Your government fucked up because of pressure from businesses who thought their bottom line more important than safety and pressure from passengers who couldn't be bothered to be inconvenienced in the slightest, even to save their lives, and because of that collective spinelessness and incompetence when the threat of airline hijackings was a known possibility America took it squarely on the chin the first time a serious incident happened. Just deal with that fact and suck it up.

But military action against a dangerous terrorist might well have forestalled the whole thing. Based on Kerry's record and his statements, I don't believe he would have taken the military approach back in '96, and more importantly, I still don't think he would take it today.

Using hindsight when the data was not available. Concession accepted.

Oh, the horror of actually having to follow the laws even when it's inconvenient! I suppose it's completely okay to ignore the constitution then if it's only foreigners who don't like America that we're talking about? Or is it? Do you really want to explore the wider implications of what you're saying here? Tell you what, there is a solution that should have been used if extrajudicial measures were to be taken in any case, and that would have been a quick, quiet, competent assassination using whatever methods the CIA and the US military have at their disposal for such operations, and afterward not pretending to take the moral high ground but just citing national security grounds.

Yes I've thought about the wider implication of what I am saying. The war with terrorists is a war. Or had that fact escaped your notice? Osama Bin Laden and his crew certainly regard it as a war, and they are waging it quite ruthlessly. Well in war you don't arrest enemy soldiers, you kill them. And when you capture them, they don't get mirandized, appointed a lawyer, and assigned a day in court. They just become POWs. This is war my friend. Just because it is not conventional war between nation states does not make it any less of a war.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a state of war by its very nature exists only between state entities and this War on Terror only matches a colloquial use of the word, not reality. How the fuck do you go about identifying the enemy? How do you guarantee that you don't just summarily deal the same fate to a shitload of innocents in the process? The difference there is what turns the whole exercise into a law enforcement action no matter what your politicians are saying about it. And IIRC the US has not granted POW status to anyone it accuses of being a terrorist because that would actually give them some rights. Afaik, they have not been given any rights at all, as we have well seen time and again whenever that inexcusable travesty of justice ("the Constitution doesn't apply to them because the place is not under US jurisdiction") called Guantanamo has come up in any kind of conversation.

And please don't tell me about how I am saying we should ignore the constitution in the case of "foreigners who don't like America", that is a ridiculous strawman distortion.

In light of the actions of the US government actions, it's not a strawman distortion, it's a statement of fact. See Guantanamo. Or why the hell do you think all those Brits the US released to UK government custody with demands for them to be kept under control got released with no charges within two days of the handover? Some nations actually care about the ideals they were founded on, even when it might be inconvenient to those in power.

I am talking about people who more than just "dislike America". I am talking about people who hate America with a fanatical religious fervor, who have stated their clear intent to attack Americans, even civilian Americans, as and when they can, and who plan and carry out these attacks when they are able to do so. I am suggesting that we treat these self proclaimed enemies as enemy combatants, not criminals.

So vigilante justice is completely okay? Or just vigilante justice against foreigners? Didn't think I'd hear a police officer advocating this kind of shit...

Let me ask you something. Do you really think that it was right to let Osama Bin Laden go when we had a chance to grab him? I mean, knowing what we know now, and knowing that in a trial, it would be necessary to produce evidence that would certainly compromise our intelligence assests, and thus impair our ability to detect and apprehend the next Osama Bin Laden, who would take over Al Quaeda in his place, do you honestly feel that we must treat this as strictly a law enforcement matter?

Assuming there had really been that opportunity (which wasn't, as Iceberg showed) and given the information at hand at the time, yes it was. On the other hand, given the rest of your conditions, which amount to accurate prescience, I'd have put an extrajudicial bullet in his brain myself, on the spot, without hesitation if given a chance. Does that answer your question?

Sorry, this approach is wholly inadequate to deal with the threat.

If the law-enforcement approach is so insufficient (European history of successfully dealing with terrorism being evidence to the contrary ) and the military approach as taken in the case of Iraq being demonstrably ineffective, I suppose you have a working solution?

Nice of you to conveniently ignore the fact that the military approach was not demonstrably ineffective in Afghanistan.

Are you being dense on purpose? I've already said Afghanistan was a success, because it was relevant to the War on Terror, but the subject at hand is Iraq and its meaning to the WoT, so take that red herring and go chop down a tree for the Knights Who Say "Ni!" with it or something.

And the European approach has also not been as universally successful as you would like to think. If it is so successful, why are the British still dealing with the problem in Northern Ireland after more than thirty years?

Maybe because it's taken that long to start addressing the issues that are causing the terrorism? Unless you didn't notice, that terrorism has lessened considerably in the past few years as the underlying causes have been tackled.

And how many civilian lives might have been saved if they had attacked Libya and taken out those IRA training camps that used to be there?

Some perhaps, but the overall effect would not have removed the underlying causes, so there would have been more attacks in any case, just not by the same individuals.

It is not inconceivable that terrorists could obtain a small nuclear device.

Given how even Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea have had difficulty getting nukes (the former unsuccessfully and the latter only probably), with the resources of whole countries at their disposal, you will please provide some evidence to support this claim that scattered organizations like AQ with less resources at their disposal could get their hands on such closely guarded and monitored devices.

You're asking me to prove a negative.

I call utter bulshit on that charge. Your own words, "not inconceivable" mean that it would be possible, and I'm asking you to provide some evidence of this possibility actually being more than utterly theoretical. There's nothing about proving a negative here, except in your imagination.

I repeat, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. It is conceivable that Kim Jong Il will develop nukes, and then sell some of them to terrorists. You know damn well that intelligence agencies all over the world have envisioned this scenario. It's their job to think of such things and try to find ways to forestall them.

Yes, it is their job, and they've been very successful in doing it. So successful in fact that it's virtually impossible to move even small components related to nuclear weapons manufacture around without raising all kinds of red flags, so the possibility is way below something like the WTC attacks.

This is just like someone prior to 9/11 saying "you will please provide some evidence to support this claim that scattered organizations like Al Quaeda, with no flight training facilities could take over air liners and fly them into buildings".

That evidence would have been laughably easy to provide, and the fact that it happened and a similar plot had been foiled earlier elsewhere are evidence enough.

It was the case with Osama Bin Laden. And we missed our opportunity to get him.

Hindsight on a siuation where there was not enough information.

Why is it that when I talk about taking military action against a country you assume I can only be talking about Iraq?

That's been the subject of this whole damned thread, and I've stated my agreement about attacking Afghanistan being a good idea, but I do not agree with using a military approach against irrelevant targets. You have not been making such a distinction here.

No, because I have clarified in more than one post that the strategy of dealing with terrorists military rather than legally is smart and necessary in appropriate cases, and I was responding to Albino Raven's blanket assertion that invading countries that sponsor terrorists accomplishes nothing. He didn't limit his comment to the case of Iraq, and I was responding to that assertion, so get that straight or concede the damned argument.

Okay, that's good enough, but when I raised the same objections by stating that military action against irrelevant targets is bad while appropriate action is good, you went on at me as if I had not made that distinction, so don't expect an apology on that count.

Edi

[Iceberg]

I'm not seeing what's so wrong with this. He's stating a fact: United States law did not allow him to bring in Osama Bin Laden because we don't have a basis on which to hold him. You're glossing over the fact that he tried to persuade another government which had the legal power to bring him in to do so, and that government failed to do so.

Would you have had Clinton break both American law AND international law at the same time, for something that (as of 1996) might happen in the future?

We already knew he was a bigwig in Al Quaeda, and that Al Quaeda had been involved with the WTC bombing in 1993.

If we could arrest and try people for membership in a criminal organization, we'd have nailed John Gotti a lot sooner than we did. Everybody knew that Gotti was guilty as sin since he showed up on the scene in the mid-70s, but it took until 1990 to get him.

[SirNitram]

Alright, taking all that shit into account, what the fuck matter is it of the US to go kill them then?

If for example the british government shot everyone that gave money to the IRA in boston etc, I suspect you and the others over there might get a bit pissy about it.

Let's not get stupid about this, shall we?

Given the post this is associated with, I could sunbathe in this irony.

It was simply not within the realm of possibility for the British to invade the United States and end such support for terrorism. If for no other reason, because the UK couldn't beat the US in a war if they had ten times the military resources they have. Moral and ethical considerations are not the only ones in the world, you know. There are practical considerations as well. Every policy should be firmly based in what is possible. Or do you not understand this.

So the US would prevent an action against known terrorist supporters? Ah, I thought you were the good guys, but instead you'd harbor those who fund terrorists!

Good lord, the foolishness that spirals out of trying to justify and redirect in Bush's favor is getting downright insulting.

[Perinquus]

Can you see the problem with assasinating Hitler in 1938 before he commited these atrocities?

Hindsight is 20-20 you moron.

We didn't need hindsight to know Osama Bin Laden was dangerous dumbass. We knew well before 9/11. In 1997 in my company training room, we had a current events threat board and Osama was appearing on it. He might have been there in '96, but I wasn't with that unit then. This is just an ordinary infantry company, and most of the articles were coming out of magazines like Time and Newsweek. If we knew that, from those sources, what did intelligence agencies, with access to highly classified information know? We knew then, that he was a terrorist, and a deadly dangerous one.

And the Hitler analogy is a false analogy in any case. Hitler was a head of state. We don't assassinate heads of state. There was also the fact that most people simply did not believe that the head of a civilized country could be a fanatical madman like Hitler was. None of this applies to Bin Laden. He was not a head of state, and did not enjoy the sorts of diplomatic protection that confers. And we did know what kind of fanatical madman he was well before 9/11.

[SirNitram]

Can you see the problem with assasinating Hitler in 1938 before he commited these atrocities?

Hindsight is 20-20 you moron.

We didn't need hindsight to know Osama Bin Laden was dangerous dumbass. We knew well before 9/11. In 1997 in my company training room, we had a current events threat board and Osama was appearing on it. He might have been there in '96, but I wasn't with that unit then. This is just an ordinary infantry company, and most of the articles were coming out of magazines like Time and Newsweek. If we knew that, from those sources, what did intelligence agencies, with access to highly classified information know? We knew then, that he was a terrorist, and a deadly dangerous one.

So, in a probably vain attempt to get this back onto Bush instead of endless red herrings, why didn't Bush do anything for the eight months before 9/11?

[Iceberg]

Can you see the problem with assasinating Hitler in 1938 before he commited these atrocities?

Hindsight is 20-20 you moron.

We didn't need hindsight to know Osama Bin Laden was dangerous dumbass. We knew well before 9/11. In 1997 in my company training room, we had a current events threat board and Osama was appearing on it. He might have been there in '96, but I wasn't with that unit then. This is just an ordinary infantry company, and most of the articles were coming out of magazines like Time and Newsweek. If we knew that, from those sources, what did intelligence agencies, with access to highly classified information know? We knew then, that he was a terrorist, and a deadly dangerous one.

And the Hitler analogy is a false analogy in any case. Hitler was a head of state. We don't assassinate heads of state. There was also the fact that most people simply did not believe that the head of a civilized country could be a fanatical madman like Hitler was. None of this applies to Bin Laden. He was not a head of state, and did not enjoy the sorts of diplomatic protection that confers. And we did know what kind of fanatical madman he was well before 9/11.

Ah, irony...

And spare me the shocked "we can't do that!" How many powerful nations have not eliminated people that they thought were sufficiently dangerous?

[Perinquus]

So the US would prevent an action against known terrorist supporters? Ah, I thought you were the good guys, but instead you'd harbor those who fund terrorists!

Good lord, the foolishness that spirals out of trying to justify and redirect in Bush's favor is getting downright insulting.

And you don't see the difference between governments that support terrorism, like Libya and Afghanistan, just to name two, and private citizens who send money to the IRA? Since when has the official policy of the US government been to support or send money to the IRA?

Now I'll grant you, we should have found some way to outlaw organizations like Noraid, and prevent them from collecting over here. That's a failing of US lawmakers. But it hardly makes the US a sponsor of IRA terrorists. Let's leave off the strawmen shall we?

[Perinquus]

I'm not seeing what's so wrong with this. He's stating a fact: United States law did not allow him to bring in Osama Bin Laden because we don't have a basis on which to hold him. You're glossing over the fact that he tried to persuade another government which had the legal power to bring him in to do so, and that government failed to do so.

Would you have had Clinton break both American law AND international law at the same time, for something that (as of 1996) might happen in the future?

We already knew he was a bigwig in Al Quaeda, and that Al Quaeda had been involved with the WTC bombing in 1993.

If we could arrest and try people for membership in a criminal organization, we'd have nailed John Gotti a lot sooner than we did. Everybody knew that Gotti was guilty as sin since he showed up on the scene in the mid-70s, but it took until 1990 to get him.

The problem is that we don't seem to declare anything a criminal organizations. In the US the Nazi party, the KKK, and violent gangs like MS13, the Folk Nation, the Black Gangster Disciples, etc. are all legal organizations. This should be remedied, but until it is, this strategy is not an option.

[SirNitram]

So the US would prevent an action against known terrorist supporters? Ah, I thought you were the good guys, but instead you'd harbor those who fund terrorists!

Good lord, the foolishness that spirals out of trying to justify and redirect in Bush's favor is getting downright insulting.

And you don't see the difference between governments that support terrorism, like Libya and Afghanistan, just to name two, and private citizens who send money to the IRA? Since when has the official policy of the US government been to support or send money to the IRA?

So now we're drawing a line between sending money to a terrorist organization and those that actively harbour and support them. Good. Once you get your blinders off, you'll realize that's exactly the point against the Saddam was helping terrorism argument.

Now I'll grant you, we should have found some way to outlaw organizations like Noraid, and prevent them from collecting over here. That's a failing of US lawmakers. But it hardly makes the US a sponsor of IRA terrorists. Let's leave off the strawmen shall we?

Given that it was designed to get a legitimate point about the US' hypocrisy in the 'war on terror', it's not a strawman.

[Keevan_Colton]

It's the usual bullshit double standard....we can do it to forigeners, but fuck them if they do it to us.....great, how wonderfuly medieval.

[Axis Kast]

It's the usual bullshit double standard....we can do it to forigeners, but fuck them if they do it to us.....great, how wonderfuly medieval.

What, and you think they wouldn't do that to us if the roles were reversed?

The world is a harsh place.

[Darth Wong]

It's the usual bullshit double standard....we can do it to forigeners, but fuck them if they do it to us.....great, how wonderfuly medieval.

What, and you think they wouldn't do that to us if the roles were reversed?

Proactively do unto others as you figure they would do unto you if given half a chance, right? That's just a form of projection. The asshole always figures that everybody else would be an equally big asshole if given the chance. That's why he throws the first punch.

The world is a harsh place.

Thanks in part to attitudes like yours.

[Axis Kast]

Proactively do unto others as you figure they would do unto you if given half a chance, right?

Not as we figure they would do unto us. As we know they would do unto us.

Thanks in part to attitudes like yours.

It does one no benefit, Wong, to play fairly while others cheat.

Do you honestly believe - even for a moment - that if others had the power, they wouldn't attempt to force us to change to better suit their visions? Do you think that those who currently have power don't do that?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Proactively do unto others as you figure they would do unto you if given half a chance, right?

Not as we figure they would do unto us. As we know they would do unto us.

Thanks in part to attitudes like yours.

It does one no benefit, Wong, to play fairly while others cheat.

Do you honestly believe - even for a moment - that if others had the power, they wouldn't attempt to force us to change to better suit their visions? Do you think that those who currently have power don't do that?

Hmm, if I'm reading this right, you're advocating cheating just because there's a possibility that someone may cheat in the future?

Why don't we fucking Preemptively NUKE every last human settlement outside the boundaries of the USA on the off chance someone from there may try to nuke a few of us while we're at it, ASSHOLE!?

Fuck you Axi, it's anti-intelligent shitstains JUST LIKE YOU who perpetuate all the terrorism and war on this blue and green dirtball! Go To Fucking Hell.

[Andrew J.]

It does one no benefit, Wong, to play fairly while others cheat.

It benefits us, because it allows us to prove to ourselves that we are better than them. You do believe that, right? That America is strong enough and brave enough to defeat our enemies without descending to their level? Axi, why do you have such a low opinion of this great country of ours?

[Vympel]

Look you asked for a defense spending record. Not every military spending item, or even most of them will relate to the war on terrorists. So when you get evidence that Kerry wants to cut spending, it's kind of ridiculous of you to sneer because this particular item is not relevant to the war on terrorists. We're talking about Kerry's record on defense in general.

I didn't just refer to the war on terror, did I?

And the reason to oppose cutting the submarine fleet is that we have one shipyard in the US that can build nuclear submarines - the Electric Boat company at Groton CT. If they lose their contracts, and don't have anything to build, the skilled workers all have to go find jobs somewhere else in other industries. Then if the situation in the world changes, and we're faced with a powerful enemy with a strong navy, and we've let out ability to build subs evaporate, we can't suddenly reconstitute it so easily.

Prove that cutting the SSN fleet by any number (the Bill called for a reduction to 40) would result in an unrecoverable loss in shipbuilding skill- especially considering that these would be in-service submarines, not new-build ones (which in 1993 included many older Sturgeon submarines that are now long retired).

Sorry, catchy bumper sticker slogans don't constitute an argument. This just proves you will sneer at anything, and apologize for anything done by a left leaning politician. I served in a light infantry unit, just for your information. I was in the 25th from 1997-2000. Light infantry units really do have a mission, and really can serve a useful purpose, snide comments like this notwithstanding.

Bullfucking shit. Clinton has done more than enough in his time in office to piss me off, and there's no gurantee that Kerry won't do the same. What I object to is this litany of stereotypical generalizations you've plopped out as an argument, without any hint of justification, and then your pretending that they're some sort of definitive statement of his stance on defense.

Back to the actual topic: Light infantry units *do* have a mission, that mission being highly specialized- and they *are* too light to fight anything other than an enemy without armor or support of any kind. Frankly, how many do you think are needed? Justify your position, for once. Frankly, I don't see you serving in one being relevant in any way whatsoever, and probably clouds your judgement out of pride. Did you know that your 25th (1st and 2nd brigade) was being upped to a medium division? With Strykers? in short, catch-phrase my arse.

Somehow, this strikes me as just a wee bit of an exagerration.

It's practically true. FFS, the USAF has more F-16s alone in service than the combined air forces of all of Europe, practically.

And we all know how those ships could NEVER be deployed to another part of the world, like say, the Persian Gulf, to clear mines and make the area safe for US and other shipping.

Look Mr Dishonest- Kerry called for the termination of the MHC(V) program, not mine hunters in general.

And when our global committments are up, why would you want to reduce the size of the armed forces by 60,000 men? I was in the army when our manpower went down dramatically, and the optempo went up. Suddenly we were all working 60+ hour weeks routinely, and often much more. Moral was down, and the military was having problems retaining key personnel because everyone was tired of not having any time for a life.

Yes, in the face of increased commitments, let's cut the size of the military even more, and make sure our power is stretched thinner. Great idea.

And global commitments were through the roof in 1993, were they?

Having eked out a living on meager military pay, I can attest to the fact that we don't pay soldiers enough. I had soldiers in my squad who were married and had children who had to get WIC checks because they couldn't feed their families and pay all their other bills on the paychecks. Does the this justification for raising military salaries not enter into the leftist brain... at all?

Yes, I'm sure there are some in the military who are in dire financial straits in need of a pay rise. And I'm sure there are people who aren't in the military in the same situation. Maybe we should advocate that they all get wage increases to live as they feel they should? Or just the military? Name me one employee- anywhere- who doesn't think he needs mo'money. This is classic erection-for-defense crap- anything less than mo'money is seen as "soft on defense".

And there goes that crazy whacko let's maintain our numerical and technoligical superiority idea.

Prove your bullshit false dilemma that any cut in military spending would result in losing America's already overwhelming technical and numerical superiority.

Nice sneering dismissal. It doesn't erase the fact that all throughout his career in congress, Kerry has consistenly viewed defense as a low priority on his agenda, and has been much more focused on social programs. As I said, he is practically the stereotype of the soft on defense liberal who would rather spend the money on social programs. In more settled times, perhaps we could afford that. But right now, with terrorists being such a big threat, this is not the man I want in the White House. This country has a long and ignoble history of being less than adequately prepared for the ward it's had to fight, and politicians like Kerry are a big reason for it.

Spare me the right wing spiel. For some reason, I'm reminded of the bit the daily show did with Cheney slamming Kerry on defense with a litany of weapons systems he was "against" (which was spurious propaganda based on his voting against two entire bills in 1990 and 1995, but anyway)- while the other side of the split screen showed yet another car bomb in Baghdad. Terrorism has very little, if anything, to do with cuts in the weapons that Kerry has at times advocated. Furthermore, your continued repetition aside, your free republic article is nothing but an unobjective cherry-pick of mostly the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, and says nothing of his voting for defense appropriation bills for the last 7 years.

Funny, I had heard that they were used to good effect in the last war.

So were all sorts of other weapons. Doesn't automatically mean they were a wise procurement decision.

And of course, as the technology for stealth aircraft is improved, and experience with such aircraft gained, it should become possible to build stealth planes better and more inexpensively in future... if we develop the technology that is. Yes, let's make sure we never develop the capability. God knows we can be certain we'd never need it anyway.

There are plenty of other 'stealth' planes in development, and in the case of the most expensive, controversial one (F/A-22), it's actually more justified.

And the ability to defend against incoming missiles is bad because?

Because it won't work.

And why would he make these statements in the first place? It tells you where his priorities are. He'd rather spend the money on something other than defense. And if he does allocate money for defense items, it will be rather grudgingly. It would be different if you could point to something like him saying "we need to cut money from high tech boondoggle programs so we can make sure not to shortchange our conventional forces" (like former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis did, for example), but I am not aware of any such statements Kerry has ever made. His natural inclination seems to be to place defense as a low priority on his agenda.

Not if you take a remotely fair look at his voting record, instead of cherry picking free republic articles.

Why not, when Clinton himself admitted it?

No, what Clinton admitted to is *not* what you're arguing- Sudan never offered to hand over Bin Laden directly to them, doesn't matter what Mansoor Ijaz says- they responded to US pressure and kicked him out.

Then it's awfully funny that George Tenet and other officials in the CIA say this sure was news to them.

Proof?

[Axis Kast]

Hmm, if I'm reading this right, you're advocating cheating just because there's a possibility that someone may cheat in the future?

No. Not possibly. Are. They are cheating.

For example, you think Israel or the United Kingdom don’t have spies in the United States of America? Do you think we shouldn’t have intelligence assets in either of those two countries?

Various nations seek underhanded advantages in the economic sphere as well. America isn’t the only one who likes to talk about free trade and then close its own markets; go look at Chinese policy.

Why don't we fucking Preemptively NUKE every last human settlement outside the boundaries of the USA on the off chance someone from there may try to nuke a few of us while we're at it, ASSHOLE!?

Because it’s not worth it. There’s a happy medium between keeping primacy and letting the global system perpetuate wealth and innovation. We can’t feasibly destroy everyone else without harming ourselves in terms of potential. Friction and competition – within controlled limits – can be useful.

It benefits us, because it allows us to prove to ourselves that we are better than them. You do believe that, right? That America is strong enough and brave enough to defeat our enemies without descending to their level? Axi, why do you have such a low opinion of this great country of ours?

Americans are no different than anybody else. I support America because its fortune is my fortune, but I do not presume for a moment that my blood or birth has anything to do with that.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Bad we've created another Iran. Just like our placing the Shah in power eventually bit us in the ass, Huessian was the region's "Bad Govenor" which was a good destraction, now we have a religious extreamest, anti US, anti Isreali boogyman fairly elected in that region and we are looking worse. Not to mention the whole of the Shite ultra-fundy islamics are going ethnic cleansing on the more western and centrist Sunni moslems.

repeat, it was a no brainer.

[General Zod]

Hmm, if I'm reading this right, you're advocating cheating just because there's a possibility that someone may cheat in the future?

No. Not possibly. Are. They are cheating.

For example, you think Israel or the United Kingdom don’t have spies in the United States of America? Do you think we shouldn’t have intelligence assets in either of those two countries?

there's this little thing called proof that's required for your idiotic assumptions. Paranoid delusions do not constitute it. Just because someone might think there are spies in our country is not a valid reason to place counter agents within their country. there has to be some type of method to verify this before sending spies is even justified. either that or the country in question has to be an obvious threat or present some type of strategic importance. you want to claim that there's spies from the UK or Israel in the states right now, show evidence for this.

[Axis Kast]

there's this little thing called proof that's required for your idiotic assumptions. Paranoid delusions do not constitute it. Just because someone might think there are spies in our country is not a valid reason to place counter agents within their country. there has to be some type of method to verify this before sending spies is even justified. either that or the country in question has to be an obvious threat or present some type of strategic importance. you want to claim that there's spies from the UK or Israel in the states right now, show evidence for this.

First of all, sending spies is always justified from a national security perspective. Don't try to blow the hot air of morality up my ass. All countries keep secrets from one another, and it's worth our time to find out what those secrets are in various cases - specifically in relation to nations like Israel and the U.K.

Israeli spies have been active in this country since 1948. Where do you think Israel got some of their first nuclear material? Here's a hint: not solely from France. A number of Israeli spies were arrested after September 11th. Furthermore, I assume you've never heard of John Pollard?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4826.shtml

[General Zod]

there's this little thing called proof that's required for your idiotic assumptions. Paranoid delusions do not constitute it. Just because someone might think there are spies in our country is not a valid reason to place counter agents within their country. there has to be some type of method to verify this before sending spies is even justified. either that or the country in question has to be an obvious threat or present some type of strategic importance. you want to claim that there's spies from the UK or Israel in the states right now, show evidence for this.

First of all, sending spies is always justified from a national security perspective. Don't try to blow the hot air of morality up my ass. All countries keep secrets from one another, and it's worth our time to find out what those secrets are in various cases - specifically in relation to nations like Israel and the U.K.

if a spy's cover gets blown it means bad news for the US. especially if there's nothing that's actually worth spying on. sure all countries keep their secrets. But unless it's something big then sending spies is a waste of dollars, time and effort.

Israeli spies have been active in this country since 1948. Where do you think Israel got some of their first nuclear material? Here's a hint: not solely from France. A number of Israeli spies were arrested after September 11th. Furthermore, I assume you've never heard of John Pollard?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4826.shtml

so we've routed out moles in the past. how does this prove that the UK and Israel have active spies right now working in the US?

[Axis Kast]

if a spy's cover gets blown it means bad news for the US. especially if there's nothing that's actually worth spying on. sure all countries keep their secrets. But unless it's something big then sending spies is a waste of dollars, time and effort.

Yes, it does. And you might be correct if the topic of discussion were, say, Zimbabwe.

But it's not. We're talking about Israel, and about the United Kingdom. Two nations in whose inner circles we wish to have unknown ears.

so we've routed out moles in the past. how does this prove that the UK and Israel have active spies right now working in the US?

You're willing to bet that we got every last Israeli spy in the U.S. between September 11th and John Pollard? You're in the minority, then. Don't be naive. The Israelis have done it time and again - even after being uncovered.