Breaking News! CNN announces Osama Bin Laden is Dead !

Reba said:
The wars weren't just to find OBL.
Click to expand...
The wars were to find Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden... to cut head of snake...

Reba said:
What did the Europeans learn from two world wars? Wait for the Americans to pull their bacon out of the fire?
Click to expand...
:lol:

that it's silly and bad for all to engage in ugly, costly wars over something. and that things can be resolved diplomatically if possible.
 
Reba said:
Look at the terrorism time line since the 1960's up to 9/11.
Click to expand...
oh I was thinking of 9/11 to now. One can say - "well look - since we've been using disproportionate use of force... there has been zero terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11".

....but at what cost? our liberty? couple of our Constitutional rights?

One more thing - in the past, it was more of domestic terrorism than foreign terrorism.

Reba said:
That's been way more than 20 years.
Click to expand...
exactly. It's time for Israelis to stop using disproportionate use of force. It's not working.
 
StSapphire said:
Sure they have. Plenty of other countries have been the victims of terrorist attacks, without declaring a worldwide "war on terror". The wide-reaching an vague "war on terror" is what I mean by "obsessed", just as the "war on drugs" previously is/was.
Click to expand...
I know other countries have been victimized by terrorism. But as far as declaring a worldwide war on terror, perhaps many of these countries simply don't have the resources. And like it or not, the US is seen as a leader in global politics. If the US didn't try to bring all of its available resources to bear against terrorism, who else would? What other countries have the resources necessary?

Some might see the actions of the US as obsession, others might see it as obligation.
 
Jiro said:
The wars were to find Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden... to cut head of snake...
Click to expand...
That's part of it.


that it's silly and bad for all to engage in ugly, costly wars over something. and that things can be resolved diplomatically if possible.
Click to expand...
So, the US should have talked to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor?

Europe should have just talked with the Nazis?

China should have talked with the Japanese after the Rape of Nanking?

Neville Chamberlain discovered, the hard way, that talk doesn't always work.
 
Reba said:
That's part of it.

So, the US should have talked to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor?

Europe should have just talked with the Nazis?

China should have talked with the Japanese after the Rape of Nanking?

Neville Chamberlain discovered, the hard way, that talk doesn't always work.
Click to expand...
no no - I'm talking about present time after World War I/II, Nazis, Rape of Nanking, and Pearl Harbor happened. Now the time is very different and nothing is blurry anymore. We all know exactly who is #1 and #2 and the world knows what we're capable of.

No need to repeat our historical messes (meaning - another World War or Vietnam War).... We were supposed to learn from our ancestors and do better.
 
Glenn said:
I know other countries have been victimized by terrorism. But as far as declaring a worldwide war on terror, perhaps many of these countries simply don't have the resources. And like it or not, the US is seen as a leader in global politics. If the US didn't try to bring all of its available resources to bear against terrorism, who else would? What other countries have the resources necessary?

Some might see the actions of the US as obsession, others might see it as obligation.
Click to expand...

Except that the rest of the world didn't ask or necessarily want the US to play unilateral global terrorism police. (This is also all ignoring the entire point of terrorism, namely "to instill fear in a people", which is exactly what declaring a global "war on terror" rather than merely working to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice succeeded in doing - making a population scared shitless.)
 
Reba said:
Neville Chamberlain discovered, the hard way, that talk doesn't always work.
Click to expand...

That's because the British and French had intels the Soviets or Nazis were planning to invade each others. The Brits were still sore they didn't get their cut of the prize when backing the White Russians didn't work for them during the Civil War. No one thought that Stalin waited to move all the factories eastward before preparing for war. They honestly thought Stalin would had invaded Nazi Germany first.

Talk all you want about the cons of appeasements, but at least reveal why the Brits did what they did.
 
I am ashamed to admit I have no idea what y'all are talking about now....I know what I will be reading about at B&N tonight though.
 
jillio said:
With respect for their right to their world view even though it is opposite.
Click to expand...
Even if that world view includes the belief that all infidels, especially Western ones, must be killed, and the Western way of life should be destroyed?
 
Reba said:
Even if that world view includes the belief that all infidels, especially Western ones, must be killed, and the Western way of life should be destroyed?
Click to expand...

Like I said, by showing respect of their right to hold their world view even when it oppposes your own.
 
jillio said:
Like I said, by showing respect of their right to hold their world view even when it oppposes your own.
Click to expand...
So, when they attack "infidels" and Western society we should respect that?
 
Reba said:
Even if that world view includes the belief that all infidels, especially Western ones, must be killed, and the Western way of life should be destroyed?
Click to expand...

Usually that view is a byproduct of unduly heavy Western influence in their area, rather than a defining characteristic. If we show respect for the underlying culture, then they will be less driven to hate us and want us dead.
 
Reba said:
So, when they attack "infidels" and Western society we should respect that?
Click to expand...

So, when we attack "ragheads" and all their neighbors, should they respect that?
Really, we are getting awfully close to lumping all Muslims together.
 
Beowulf said:
So, when we attack "ragheads" and all their neighbors, should they respect that?
Really, we are getting awfully close to lumping all Muslims together.
Click to expand...
I don't lump all Muslims together. I consider the ones who want all infidels dead to be a threat.

I didn't say we should attack "ragheads" (I never used that term) and all their neighbors (I assume you mean non-"ragheads," as you call them).

I did say that Islamic terrorists who attack America or Americans shouldn't expect us to simply say, "Oh, that's their culture, and we should respect that."

They should expect retaliation. Isn't that also in their culture?
 
I was responding to this.

Reba said:
So, when they attack "infidels" and Western society we should respect that?
Click to expand...


Really, they are a minority, but judging from our almost-genocidal response, you would not think so.
 
Back
Top