This time it's London...

[SkiDog]

My next thought would be. Do we let these terrorists dictate where and when we are allowed to be involved (based on reports that the attack is directly related to the involvement in iraq/afghanitan)? Are they the ones giving the orders now? I think we (the global community) should strenghten our resolve to rid the world of these "crazies". Threatening our citites with continued attacks should only make us want to stop it more, not back away..We back away..THEY WIN..

M

 

[ctenidae]

Fully agree with your sentiment there. The question, then, is "How?" Clearly, invading countries willy-nilly (just wanted to say that) isn't very effective. There is something to be said for an isolationist approach- isolating them, not us. There is a huge anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East- most countries don't want us meddling in their affairs. Fine by me. Only two real reasons to be involved anywhere- Humanitarian and economic. We can do without the oil, if only we would. Our humanitarian efforts don't seem to be appreciated. So, why bother? In a way, maybe the terrorists win if we pull out of the ME entirely. We win, too- save money, lives, the environment Let them sort it out on their own.

 

[SkiDog]

Fully agree with your sentiment there. The question, then, is "How?" Clearly, invading countries willy-nilly (just wanted to say that) isn't very effective. There is something to be said for an isolationist approach- isolating them, not us. There is a huge anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East- most countries don't want us meddling in their affairs. Fine by me. Only two real reasons to be involved anywhere- Humanitarian and economic. We can do without the oil, if only we would. Our humanitarian efforts don't seem to be appreciated. So, why bother? In a way, maybe the terrorists win if we pull out of the ME entirely. We win, too- save money, lives, the environment Let them sort it out on their own.

Good points again...How is the real quesiton..and I totally agree invading "willy nilly" (it is funny)..is not right.

I for a long time have been a believer in "lets not get involved" but sometimes its necessary. I don't know why the humaitarian efforts are so often overlooked and underappreciated? we do spend a ton of cash taking care of what others should be taking care of themselves...

Eh its all a big mess and we are living in a very scary time, but look Isreal has been living with this for longer than I can think...I just hope we don't get to the point where car bombs are going off in our streets everyday..

M

 

[pizza]

"Our values will long outlast their's."

video of Blair's remarks:
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/tbspeak.wmv

It's good.

 

[JimG.]

So it's not just in response to Iraq. Should we all withdraw from Afghanistan too?

We can't; that's what Bin Laden said would happen if Al Qaida drew blood and killed a few troops. That's what he said when we withdrew from Somalia too, that we did so because Americans don't have the stomach for a fight.

I hope folks here paid attention to what loafer89's wife wrote...these terrorists are a crazy minority (special interest group?) whose insanity now colors an entire ethnic group. We need to stay in these places, but reach out in a useful way (to them, not us) to make the silent majority there (95% of the population I'll bet) realize we're not the enemy.

Intolerance and overall hatred without understanding only lowers us to their level; we can't win down there because they have more experience.

 

[Stephen]

Dammit... a beautiful flame fest and I can't even get a word in edgewise!

London bombings... I don't believe Al Queida is good enough to have teams roving around waiting to bomb whatever city was chosen. If they were ready to hit all the cities, why not hit them all? There's another reason why this happened. Maybe the G8. Maybe something historical with the date? Maybe the IRA got bored with politics?

Paris has a paper trail to Baghdad.

Islamists not only believe all "infidels" should be killed, they also believe that if you aren't the right type of Muslim (ie, Sunnis need not apply) you should be killed as well. As wrong as our crusades were, the Islamic terrorists are on their own crusade, and there is NO justification allowed, period.

At this point, we're not even sure it WAS al queida (even though one group may have claimed responsibility). Let's not make an Oklahoma City mistake again by projecting the blame before it is due.

However, Al Queda has reason to believe a people will turn against it's government if bombed... it worked in Spain. And the reward for Spain's withdrawl? An encouraged terrorist network that may try to bomb other countries out of the war.

Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple. If we could fight this war as a war is supposed to be fought (the purpose of war is to kill people and break things for an ultimate goal, remember...), there need not be one US soldier put in harms way. However, liberals are demanding a "sensitve" war. Requiring precision bombing and boots on the ground.

I for one would be happy to see boots replaced with bombs instead. Tikrit and Fallujah shouldn't even exist on a map anymore, in my opinion.

-Stephen

 

[SilentCal]

Personally I think it has to do with the G8 summit and not the Olympics. Paris was heavily favored to win and London just pulled an upset. I think the terrorists believed that most of the English security forces would concentrate on the G8 summit in Scotland and leave the rest of the country out on a limb. It would be a perfect way to draw attention to their cause by having an attack so close to this important summit. Hopefully Trailboss's theory proves correct with the video survielance and they catch the bastards. I'm not sure if they ever found anything evidence-wise on the Madrid bombings on tape. Don't really care to comment on whose fault this is. These knuckleheads have already won since we are pointing the fingers at each other and battling between us rather than against them.

 

[SkiDog]

Dammit... a beautiful flame fest and I can't even get a word in edgewise!

London bombings... I don't believe Al Queida is good enough to have teams roving around waiting to bomb whatever city was chosen. If they were ready to hit all the cities, why not hit them all? There's another reason why this happened. Maybe the G8. Maybe something historical with the date? Maybe the IRA got bored with politics?

Paris has a paper trail to Baghdad.

Islamists not only believe all "infidels" should be killed, they also believe that if you aren't the right type of Muslim (ie, Sunnis need not apply) you should be killed as well. As wrong as our crusades were, the Islamic terrorists are on their own crusade, and there is NO justification allowed, period.

At this point, we're not even sure it WAS al queida (even though one group may have claimed responsibility). Let's not make an Oklahoma City mistake again by projecting the blame before it is due.

However, Al Queda has reason to believe a people will turn against it's government if bombed... it worked in Spain. And the reward for Spain's withdrawl? An encouraged terrorist network that may try to bomb other countries out of the war.

Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple. If we could fight this war as a war is supposed to be fought (the purpose of war is to kill people and break things for an ultimate goal, remember...), there need not be one US soldier put in harms way. However, liberals are demanding a "sensitve" war. Requiring precision bombing and boots on the ground.

I for one would be happy to see boots replaced with bombs instead. Tikrit and Fallujah shouldn't even exist on a map anymore, in my opinion.

-Stephen

Wow I like all of the above....war sucks, but its war...let us fight it the "right" way...we have the artillery to be nowhere near there...why not use it?

Less lives lost...ultimate goal acheived in a relatively short period of time...

survival of the fittest if you will.

M

 

[ctenidae]

You can't take over a country from the air. Period.

 

[DJAK]

Regardless of which side of the Iraq fence you reside on, it seems pretty simple.

We got put our "thing" into a Iraq without a condom and got her pregnant. One night stand syle, rather than after dating her for a while. Had we dated for a while we might have decided otherwise or at least had some help.

Now that we got Iraq pregnant and the whole world knows that we're the father, we're morally bound to pay the alimony until they are 18. Even then we may still have to pay for our poor foresight and parenting skills.

In war and in life, don't hop into bed on the first night, and if your gonna, do it covertly so know one knows you did it.

Thats not pc i know, but you could make GW out to be the drunk teen on this one in so many ways.

He may learn his lesson, but who's paying his tuition to be a drunken frat boy on the world stage?

 

[dmc]

My problem with the Iraq war is we we're misslead into rushing into this thing.. I supported the war initially based upon WMDs...
We did not need to rush into this war... We had Sadam contained...
We should've finished cleaning up the Taliban and Al Quiada in Afgahnistan and Pakistan before taking resources to Iraq..
We should've had many more troops to seal off the boarders and seal up the munitions dumps, etc...
We should've forseen the insurgency - Powell and Bush Sr. did... But Rove,Cheney and Bush did not...
We should've sent our guys over these with better armour on thier trucks and hum-vs...

We should've followed the Powell Docterine... Instead we watch GWB politically emasculate him...

We already have an 8 page discussion on the war. Please continue this topic in that thread.

Wow... Sorry... I was just going along with the discussion...

I obviously don't have the system down here...
I'll back off unitl I can figure out how to debate one issue in one thread... Even if those issues have to do with each other...

 

[SkiDog]

You can't take over a country from the air. Period.

Not completely, but you can surely minimize the risk to ground troops with massive air strike prior to ground troops...essentially knock them WAY down..then send the ground troops in to kick them while they are still "down"

M

 

[blacknblue]

However, Al Queda has reason to believe a people will turn against it's government if bombed... it worked in Spain. And the reward for Spain's withdrawl? An encouraged terrorist network that may try to bomb other countries out of the war.

-Stephen

I think this is exactly right, and something I (and many others) predicted after the Spanish elections. The fact that Spain backed out of Iraq on the basis of the terrorist bombings in Madrid only encouraged them to attack again. Of course they are going to try to scare others away. The Spaniards are at least partially to blame for encouraging this terrorist behavior in London.
If Spain had withdrawn for other reasons, that would be fine. But b/c they backed out b/c the terrorists hit them back, now we can expect terrorists doing the same in Italy and Denmark, too.

 

[dmc]

Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple.

How dare you say something like that...

You disgust me... Frigging disgusting...

Later for this conversation...

Greg getting on me for posting in the wrong thread now you accusssing ME of dead soldiers...

Disgusting...
Enjoy your summer... Hope you don't get drafted...

 

[Greg]

My problem with the Iraq war is we we're misslead into rushing into this thing.. I supported the war initially based upon WMDs...
We did not need to rush into this war... We had Sadam contained...
We should've finished cleaning up the Taliban and Al Quiada in Afgahnistan and Pakistan before taking resources to Iraq..
We should've had many more troops to seal off the boarders and seal up the munitions dumps, etc...
We should've forseen the insurgency - Powell and Bush Sr. did... But Rove,Cheney and Bush did not...
We should've sent our guys over these with better armour on thier trucks and hum-vs...

We should've followed the Powell Docterine... Instead we watch GWB politically emasculate him...

We already have an 8 page discussion on the war. Please continue this topic in that thread.

Wow... Sorry... I was just going along with the discussion...

I obviously don't have the system down here...
I'll back off unitl I can figure out how to debate one issue in one thread... Even if those issues have to do with each other...

It just seemed to me that we've been through the circular Iraq discussion more than once. You reiterated arguments you made in that other thread. I guess my point was to keep the Iraq debate separate, but I guess there are parallels with today's events. Carry on...

 

[thetrailboss]

OK, let's keep on the topic of the bombing, please....

 

[Greg]

Dammit... a beautiful flame fest and I can't even get a word in edgewise!

London bombings... I don't believe Al Queida is good enough to have teams roving around waiting to bomb whatever city was chosen. If they were ready to hit all the cities, why not hit them all? There's another reason why this happened. Maybe the G8. Maybe something historical with the date? Maybe the IRA got bored with politics?

Paris has a paper trail to Baghdad.

Islamists not only believe all "infidels" should be killed, they also believe that if you aren't the right type of Muslim (ie, Sunnis need not apply) you should be killed as well. As wrong as our crusades were, the Islamic terrorists are on their own crusade, and there is NO justification allowed, period.

At this point, we're not even sure it WAS al queida (even though one group may have claimed responsibility). Let's not make an Oklahoma City mistake again by projecting the blame before it is due.

However, Al Queda has reason to believe a people will turn against it's government if bombed... it worked in Spain. And the reward for Spain's withdrawl? An encouraged terrorist network that may try to bomb other countries out of the war.

Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple. If we could fight this war as a war is supposed to be fought (the purpose of war is to kill people and break things for an ultimate goal, remember...), there need not be one US soldier put in harms way. However, liberals are demanding a "sensitve" war. Requiring precision bombing and boots on the ground.

I for one would be happy to see boots replaced with bombs instead. Tikrit and Fallujah shouldn't even exist on a map anymore, in my opinion.

-Stephen

Wow. Easy there, Stephen. This thread was not at all a "beautiful flame fest", but now you're baiting here. Let's show some restraint, please.

 

[Stephen]

Wow. Easy there, Stephen. This thread was not at all a "beautiful flame fest", but now you're baiting here. Let's show some restraint, please.

Greg,

My intent wasn't to bait, but to try and tie the many ideas together. I tried to hit them all in one post as opposed to quoting each and every post in separate replies.

To sum up the bombing points:

-We don't know who did it yet.

-I don't think it's tied to the Olympics

-IF it is Al Qeida, then it's probably rooted in their successful campaign in Spain.


-Stephen

 

[ctenidae]

I think it's a bit specious to blame the London bombings on Spain, blacknblue. I think Spain was about to pull out, anyway- there was certainly public support for it- but the gov't was looking for a decent way to exit. The voters certainly gave it to them. Yeah, the terrorists claim a victory there, but in reality all they did was hasten what was going to happen anyway.

To get back to Iraq briefly, what, exactly, could have been bombed, Stephen/b] and skidog? A very small percentage of US troops were killed by the Iraqi military- they were pretty well dismantled. The rest have come from insurgents. What would you bomb? Every garage, kitchen, and basement in the entire country?

Back to London, I can't wait to see what kind of footage those CCTV cameras get.

 

[pizza]

I can understand the reasoning behind Stephen's comment about liberals, but it's overly simplistic and written not to cause people to think, but rather to make people angry. That's not cool.

So lets analyze that statement and see what we can come up with.

* Rules of warfare have changed in the last century, and yes, those of the liberal persuasion have caused this.
* They have been changed to minimize casualties and long-term damage.
* Had we been fighting by the rules of a century ago, this war would be over.

Fair enough.
Now here's why that comment is oversimplified:

* But methods of warfare have also changed in the last century.
* If we were to apply modern rules of warfare to modern methods, the result would be disaster on both sides.
* Civilian casualties would be incredible. Millions dead. There's a word for that: evil.
* Our intention is to create a stable friendly Iraq. Working this way would be contrary to our intention.
* The sheer number of civilian casualties would skew historical perspective: We would go down in history as mass-murderers as some other historical figures have.

Would you rather have that, or have 2000 Americans dead? Most of us would have neither, but if you would be forced to choose one, I would hope we'd all choose the latter.

So while I am most certainly NOT a liberal, I do recognize the importance of their influence in modern America.