|
|
Post by B8 on May 13, 2006 9:42:34 GMT -5
War is the solution to unresolvable problems. When two ideologies collide and cannot resolve their issues war results. The winner had best be able to find a solution or there will be a guerrilla war forever. This is still war but is a "limited war".
The limit to the war is that it is fought on the side that lost the big war and is not brought back in the original form of war on the winners turf. Once there is enough stability in country and we can separate the sheep from the goats then the guerrillas get destroyed as occurred during the Tet offensive in Vietnam. We won that war but lost the country because we did not have the initiative with our own media. So why did our media make us quit and the resulting loss? Damn if I know, but I do not want to see it happen again.
So now we have the same situation again with a guerrilla war in a foreign country. Casualties reported by the media and very little feedback from our own soldiers reported. Ask the people coming back what their opinion is and you will see the fight is still justified. End terrorism over there!
During the cold war we had Russia, China, and Cuba to thank for almost all of the terrorism in the world. Why do we not find out who is sponsoring the terrorists now? Why is the media silent on this subject? Are they involved in creating the news? Are they sponsoring it silently by not finding out who is doing this and publicizing it? The media has the resources to ferret out the bad guys so why are they suddenly quiet?
I see 1973 happening again all over. What happened in 1973 everyone? If you cannot answer this without looking it up then your history coursed missed you and the education that you have been given is not worth the paper it was written on. Oh wait the electrons used to show it to you, big brother rewrites history on the fly now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami on May 13, 2006 10:26:04 GMT -5
a war wouldnt solve anything.
The terrorist are in your views terrorists, in they're eyes they're freedom fighters. Each diffrent nation is fighting for a diffrent cause. for instance the palestinians want their home back, thus they resort towards "terrorist" moves.
no, a war wouldnt solve a thing
Back in the cold war it was nice to know who was the enemy and who was with us. Communism vs. Democracy, U.S.S.R vs. U.S.A, with one of the sides and thats it. But in this post-cold war world, all we have is vague clues of who is agaisnt us (and some very obvious ones) North Korea, Political Islam, certain Terrorist groups.
if a war would solve it, would we want Pakistan to go to war agaisnt india? both countries have nukes, are willing to use nukes and then North Korea may take on.
If we attack anyone, it would be bad as well. who would we attack?
if we attack another middle eastern company, oil will be the new gold. If we attack a european Country, then were dealing with the EU, attack asia? well depends i guess. China would be a bad idea seeing how they may surpass us as a superpower in the coming years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caboose on May 13, 2006 12:14:14 GMT -5
The Cold War isn't over.
During the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there was MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. That means if Russia nukes us, we nuke them back and vice versa. Today, MAD is virtually inexistant because...
Back when Russia had it's major break, their military broke up and Russia separated itself into states. The problem is, the military had control of the nukes. These got into the wrong hands and were sold to just about anyone, including terrorists. That means that we know where our nukes are, but Russia doesn't. The U.S. and Russia had thousands of nukes. Right now, we have about 6000 operable nukes and Russia should have the same. Should.
Now, we find ourselves in quite a pickle, considering we just received a note from Iran stating that everyone hates us. Also, just about every country against us has some sort of nuclear weaponry. One country that supports us is definitely screwed. Israel is surrounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, all of which hate Israel and the U.S. and have nukes.
Now, back to the problem with Russia selling its nukes. Those who bought Russia's bombs could have learned how to manufacture such a thing, so now terrorists can not only use their nukes but they could also create nukes. What if 9/11 had not been with planes, but with nukes?
Oh and btw, B8 are you talking about 1963 or 1973? 1963 was pretty turbulent on the Cold War side...and then FDR got capped. FDR was doing some good too, especially with that damn Cuban Missile Crisis. 16 days of hell for him. But we lived. And he didn't. In regards to Vietnam, we were pretty stupid to go in there, considering we couldn't tell apart who was who in the battlefield. It was so bad that poor LBJ knew he was lost so he didn't even run again. But, seeing as how Ngo Dinh Diem was treating everybody...well, that's a different story.
Anyways, I would like to say thank you to my APUSH teacher. (APUSH = AP US History) That class was pretty hard, but it was worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 13, 2006 15:26:03 GMT -5
In 1973 we pulled out of South Vietnam. In 1975 the North Vietnam Army rolled south trough South Vietnam. We won the war but lost the country. For two years South Vietnam was on its own. When we stopped our aid to them the South Vietnames efforts collapsed. No one under 50 seems to know what happened. History courses are being dumbed down. I now include AP history in that category. All education is being dumbed down into feel good classes. There is no point to education if nothing is taught. School is out people! We won in Korea because we fought and STAYED there to this day. Can you imagine how far ahead North Korea would be with their nuclear program if we had pulled out in 1953?
OK now we have a fight in another part of the world. We are not attacking anyone more. Let us say that we pull out of the middle east. What happens then? The answer is writ above. The work is undone and we have another South Vietnam mess. Certainly the area will be stable for a while. How long? A month? A year?
A day?
We have found highly enriched Uranium and the news is just released. Now what? Fold up our tents and quit?
When you start a fight as we have you stay until it is over. Be that 2 years or in the case of Korea well over 50 years. No one is screaming for us to get out of Korea. We need the area as a base just in case they do start problems. We need the area in the middle east as a base in case problems are found or started there.
|
|
|
|
Post by agentx on May 14, 2006 0:41:47 GMT -5
Don't freak with Lebanon. End statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami on May 14, 2006 1:43:09 GMT -5
Don't freak with Lebanon. End statement.  FTW!!! exaltations for u sir |
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 14, 2006 7:26:57 GMT -5
The point of this argument is any country is fair game if they decide to mess with:
1 United States citizens
2 United States interests, IE siezing US property, possetions, assets, weapons, etc.
3 Attacks the continental US in any form
4 Does something stupid, IE makes vieled statements implying theat we are ______________(insert threatening comment.)
5 Other USA assests
6 Supports others that would do us harm.
Carry the big stick and use it only if necessary. Sorry folks but when have you seen France stick up for any one else? When have you seen Japan stick up for anyone else? Add up all of the other people who should be doing things and you begin to see that the world leadership is poplated with - cough - chickens.
Germany, France, Italy all have high tech weapons and just refuse to use the assets that they have at hand.
War solves problems on a semi permanent basis.
Is it any wonder that Pakistan came around and is now our ally in the war on terror? What happened to Mummar Quadafi? He gave up his weapons of mass destruction program. So say what you want this effort is making things go the way the world should have them go. Even China is on our side against the Norht Koreans. Think about those positive things before you say stay out of any country. WAR makes peace possible!
|
|
|
|
Post by Caboose on May 14, 2006 13:58:59 GMT -5
Carry the big stick and use it only if necessary. Hmm....but are we walking softly? (Thank you, TR) BTW when we pulled out of Vietnam, we replaced our soldiers with South Vietnamese soldiers. Not the brightest idea, but it got us out of there. Can we technically use Vietnamization in Iraq? Maybe...but then, like B8 said, there would be some steamrolling going on...damn, war sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by agentx on May 14, 2006 15:01:23 GMT -5
B8 i like your #4:
4 Does something stupid, IE makes vieled statements implying theat we are ______________(insert threatening comment.)
...makes veiled statements implying that we are 'I'll break your arm'
|
|
|
|
Post by xymaris on May 14, 2006 15:35:56 GMT -5
The Real axis of Evil Is The U.S.A, Israel and Turkey, who between the three of them Commit more atrocities and acts of terrorism than any other country in the last decade in terms of prescendant and number.
I am willing to debate this.
|
|
|
|
Post by agentx on May 14, 2006 17:08:56 GMT -5
such as...
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 14, 2006 17:25:19 GMT -5
No arguement that we commit acts of terror. We commit those acts in response to provovation or other such ideaology. There are darn few first strike acts that we have made. Do tell me some of them and we can begin a new thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by agentx on May 15, 2006 14:28:55 GMT -5
IF what you say IS true, then shouldnt we be at war with ourselves? "To fight this war on terror"? any of this ringing a bell?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caboose on May 15, 2006 14:54:56 GMT -5
Remember, we are being led by George W. Bush...
2008 can't come fast enough...
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 15, 2006 20:10:02 GMT -5
And you propose to have a wimp take over? Remember if there is a change of agenda then we get 1973 all over again. Except with this enemy we will have to do it all over again. And again, and again, and again. We have a sort of peace now if we give up and pull out that is the true disaster. Prepare to fight in your homes people, the war WILL be brought to you.
|
|
FTW!!!