:rolleyes: You can’t seriously mean to imply pulling out of Iraq will lead to more terror attacks in the U.S.?
It’s becoming painfully obvious that staying in Iraq is far, far more likely to produce that result. Occupation breeds resentment (not in Iraq alone, but throughout the Islamic world). Resentment breeds more ground-level support for terrorist groups. And that breeds . . . Well, it’s not a hard causal chain to follow.
In any case, there hasn’t been a successful terror attack in the U.S. since 2001. All we had to do was beef up our security a little. As the Decider says, “Fool me once . . . errmmm . . . shame on you! But ya can’t fool me again!”
Yes? Der keeps telling me there’s no point in wishing or hoping etc etc because it’s all worthless, hence the nilihistic attitude he’s representing.
Often this means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are more substantial or truthful, whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to nothing.
Not necessarily, however the threat of attacks on overseas property and infrastructure of the US would increase dramatically. Many of the jihadists in Iraq would have a base of operations in which to launch attacks in Europe.
It’s actually becoming ‘painfully obvious’ that if the US were to leave Iraqis without having a government with properly equipped and trained security forces, that Al Queda would be able to ride that wave of resentment and set up permanent shop in Anbar to launch more attacks against that country, Western targets and Arab regimes in the Middle East, now, I don’t know about you, but withdrawing on the pretext that ‘occupation breeds resentment’ without actually leaving the occupation with tangible results (again Iraqi security forces trained, competent government established) because of it only breeds more resentment, see what I’m getting at?
But the US embassies/consulates have been attacked in Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia (I think) and numerous US targets have been attacked throughout the world by Al Queda and it’s affiliates. Thinking that they have limited objectives or that the violence in Iraq would be contained to that country is foolish thinking.
Well then, you might be better off spouting platitutes of off wingnut bumper-stickers. At least they are honest about their ignorance. Nothing worse, IMO, than a pseudo-intellectual such as yourself trying to win an argumet on merit that was long lost. All hat and no cattle. Sound familiar? It should.
Of course, if you think you can do better than literally dozens of your cohorts here on the SDSMB, not just “bring it on,” but call the WH right-quick. 'cause they are in a humongous mess and could use any help they can get.
Including cannon-fodder of course. Easy for people like you and Ryan to dodge bullets from your monitors, while egging other to give their blood for your “cause?”
So if asking young people to enlist isn’t the answer, how do you propose you stop the recruiting shortfalls?
Remember when Republicans called Clinton a draft-dodger? Were you outraged then? Well, he opposed the Vietnam war. Bush supported the Vietnam war, but didn’t go. Cheney didn’t even enlist. Rove, et al same story.
Pat Tillman gave everything up and enlisted. His family told you all to fuck off when you tried to use his death as a recruiting tool. Are Tillman;s family a bunch of traitors too because they exposed yet one more lie of this Administration?
So you’re going to have to put up with this chickenhawk shit until you get the College Republicans off the sauce and on the battlefield. People like me, all over teh world, will thank you later when Iraq is a beacon of democracy and the mideast is transformed and nobody has to worry about terrorism because all these brave Republicans killed them all.
That’s the plan, isn’t it? Then again, we could just get real.
Meanwhile, all I am saying is that all of you gung-ho MF of fighting age should put your lives – along with your fellow recruits – on the line. Not only would that help solve the US’s armed forces recruitment goals, but you’d be a a tad more convincing in your arguments that the 101st Keyborders.
Here’s an articleworth a read – though certainly not for the likes of you.
bolding mine.
You’re full of something alright…looks much likes feces from my vantage point. If it’s alright by you, let’s just keep it that way – the feces I mean.
Now wait just one motherfuckin minute. I’m as anti-Bushwar as anyone, but that is just wrong. Our troops are working people, they are our sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, etc. Many of them oppose the administration’s insane policies but the Man has them over a barrel. Don’t take it out on them, for cripes sakes.
And if someone invaded my country, would you say I was wrong to hope that we managed to kill them off ? Or is it only American soldiers whose life is sacrosanct ? I didn’t say “American soldiers”, I specified “American solders in Iraq” for a reason.
Supporting a rapid end to an unjust war is morally acceptable. Supporting the deaths of tens of thousands of people ordered into an unjust war is morally reprehensible.
Oh ? Then why aren’t those soldiers “morally reprehensible” for killing tens of thousands in that unjust war ? Does putting on an American military uniform absolve you of all sins ?
I do think that fighting in an unjust war is morally reprehensible, and I think that US soldiers have a moral obligation to disobey orders to fight in an unjust war.
EVERYONE needs to back off on the ad hominem claims and related slurs. If you can’t keep the discussion going without resorting to calling everyone with whom you differ a monster or a fool, then you need to relocate to the Pit.
No, it doesn’t. But that still doesn’t give one cause to ignore the degree of difficulty involved in a lone soldier’s refusing an order, even an unlawful one. I believe Daniel is right - they are morally required to refuse to obey their orders to prosecute an unjust war. But I also realize (as I’m sure he does) that the vast majority of us would fail that test, even most of us cranky individualists. To desire their death for their inability to meet such a challenge is beyond all fairness or reason.
I fully expect many Iraqis to seek the death of our soldiers, because our soldiers are occupying their country. We’re not in their situation.
However hard it is on them, it’s far harder on the people they are killing. I have no sympathy for them.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’d kill myself before doing what they have done. I don’t regard myself as especially heroic. Besides, they can also desert, or go to prison, or do other things that are easier on them than killing is on their victims.
I certainly have far less sympathy for them than I do for their victims. But even if I’m going to skip out on Jesus’ admonition to “judge not,” I’m too aware of the limitations of human nature. If everyone on earth who was unable to meet your standard were to die right at this moment, it would be a very lonely world for the survivors.
Goody for you; you’re clearly better than the rest of us.
Would you kill yourself before condemning to death the American soldiers you believe deserve it, if you had the power to condemn them?
What does that mean? You seem to consider yourself more heroic, in this regard, than the vast majority of people now alive.