- Post
- #260368
- Topic
- The $$$ spent on the war on terror
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260368/action/topic#260368
- Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Yes, and I assess it at zero. What he wants to do and what he can do are two different stories. It was the same with Saddam Hussein: Surely he wanted to cause mass mayhem ... but, despite the lies told by our Administration, he did not have any capability to. As such, a so-called pre-emptive strike against the country he happened to rule was an act of unprovoked aggression. It is the United States that is the danger to innocents, not Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Madman Ahmadinejad of Iran. They may want to cause mayhem and mass murder, but the U.S. has.
That makes the U.S. every bit a legitimate military target as Iraq was an illegitimate one.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.
Agreed. And if that can be proven, then a military response against such countries' military targets would be appropriate. In any case, a military response against terrorist organization assets and personnel on foreign soil is always appropriate. But such a response need not be a "war."
Statistically insignificant? Those statistics are a reality in the examples I cited previously. Again, because they occured on foreign soil does not mean they didn't happen.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.
Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.
Agreed. And if that can be proven, then a military response against such countries' military targets would be appropriate. In any case, a military response against terrorist organization assets and personnel on foreign soil is always appropriate. But such a response need not be a "war."
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.
And if the WTC was demolished by local terrorists, as the Murrah Federal Building was, why is it appropriate to treat one as a crime and not the other?
Nicols and McVeigh were American citizens who were afforded their due-process rights under the constitution. Terrorists do not enjoy the same protections, despite the efforts of leftist politicians and the media.
Wow, that's jaded.
As a government purportedly of the people and by the people, perhaps the people should decide other priorities. And if human life were the priority, our resources could go toward defending from likely threats ... and not from the statistically insignicant danger of terrorist attack.
If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.
And if the WTC was demolished by local terrorists, as the Murrah Federal Building was, why is it appropriate to treat one as a crime and not the other?
Nicols and McVeigh were American citizens who were afforded their due-process rights under the constitution. Terrorists do not enjoy the same protections, despite the efforts of leftist politicians and the media.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.
Yes, the difference being that the radical Islamacists have killed under 4,000 Americans, and the bloods and crips countless more. We do not have 'Minority Report'-style crime-fighting or war powers; what people "want" to do is not the issue. It's what they can do and have done.
We do have Ahmidenajhad in Iran openly calling for the annihiation of Israel and persuing nuclear weapons. Hellen Keller can see "what they want".
Frankly, governments do not place any importance on human life. As I said before, the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 dealt a horrible blow the economy of our country ... and that's what the military response was to ... not to the deaths of our countrymen.
The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.
Yes, the difference being that the radical Islamacists have killed under 4,000 Americans, and the bloods and crips countless more. We do not have 'Minority Report'-style crime-fighting or war powers; what people "want" to do is not the issue. It's what they can do and have done.
We do have Ahmidenajhad in Iran openly calling for the annihiation of Israel and persuing nuclear weapons. Hellen Keller can see "what they want".
Frankly, governments do not place any importance on human life. As I said before, the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 dealt a horrible blow the economy of our country ... and that's what the military response was to ... not to the deaths of our countrymen.
Wow, that's jaded.
As a government purportedly of the people and by the people, perhaps the people should decide other priorities. And if human life were the priority, our resources could go toward defending from likely threats ... and not from the statistically insignicant danger of terrorist attack.
Statistically insignificant? Those statistics are a reality in the examples I cited previously. Again, because they occured on foreign soil does not mean they didn't happen.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.
Yes, and I assess it at zero. What he wants to do and what he can do are two different stories. It was the same with Saddam Hussein: Surely he wanted to cause mass mayhem ... but, despite the lies told by our Administration, he did not have any capability to. As such, a so-called pre-emptive strike against the country he happened to rule was an act of unprovoked aggression. It is the United States that is the danger to innocents, not Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Madman Ahmadinejad of Iran. They may want to cause mayhem and mass murder, but the U.S. has.
That makes the U.S. every bit a legitimate military target as Iraq was an illegitimate one.
I'm always amazed by how many people have bought into the whole "the U.S. is bad too so we deserve it" mentality. The worst kind of self-haters.
