So you thought phone tapping terrorists were bad?

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3227833
What about a few months ago when it became known they where tapping and listening to the phone calls made by our service members overseas? I don't remember the exact specifics though I doubt they where overseas numbers tied to known terrorists.
Fishtaco
Didn't hear about that however service members don't enjoy all the constitutional rights civilians do so I am not sure of the legalities of it.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3227674
I wouldn't go that far. I don't support sending troops somewhere if he isn't comfortable with using the term victory...
Why send people over there, unless you know we can kick some tail, make it work, then go home...
The simple fact is the Obama administration is arguing that it is ok to find out where you are using government required GPS put into your phone (which last time I checked they still hadn't equipped the majority of the 911 call centers with the technology to utilize it.) Domestic US citizens, without a warrant... But Bush wiretapping international phone calls is worth months and months of feigned outrage...

I dunno, I heard Obama's press gerbil Gibbs taking credit for success in Iraq the other day (almost gagged), I am sure they would like to be able to do the same in Afghanistan. At least it would be legit for them to claim that.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3227857
I dunno, I heard Obama's press gerbil Gibbs taking credit for success in Iraq the other day (almost gagged), I am sure they would like to be able to do the same in Afghanistan. At least it would be legit for them to claim that.
If you as Prez aren't sending a your military in to win, which he has said, he's not confortable with using the term victory, then why are you sending our boys into harm's way?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3227893
If you as Prez aren't sending a your military in to win, which he has said, he's not confortable with using the term victory, then why are you sending our boys into harm's way?
Precisely what I wondered when the last administration declared the war won.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3227896
Precisely what I wondered when the last administration declared the war won.

They declared success which they defined as providing a level of security and stability that will afford the new government a reasonable opportunity to survive. This is the kind of war you don't win. The only way to win a war is to obliterate your opponent. Doesn't happen much.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3227904
They declared success which they defined as providing a level of security and stability that will afford the new government a reasonable opportunity to survive. This is the kind of war you don't win. The only way to win a war is to obliterate your opponent. Doesn't happen much.
We did not obliterate the Germans or Japanese during WWII, we just offered to ( and showed our ability and resolve)and they gave up.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3227950
We did not obliterate the Germans or Japanese during WWII, we just offered to ( and showed our ability and resolve)and they gave up.
And how much did we spend rebuilding and policing both countries? I don't know I'd call that a win. Had Ike and Harry S had the stones to turn George S loose on the Ruskies I might feel differently about it.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3227904
They declared success which they defined as providing a level of security and stability that will afford the new government a reasonable opportunity to survive. This is the kind of war you don't win. The only way to win a war is to obliterate your opponent. Doesn't happen much.
That's where I get confused. Security and stability for whom? Are not the Conservatives those who would argue that one cannot exchange freedom for security and those who would do so deserve neither?
There have been arguments about being afraid to use the term "victory" in the context of this conflagration. They have been used to deride Obama, and yet, while Bush used the word, he never defined the conditions whereby victory could be declared, let alone under what circumstances troops would be withdrawn.
If this is the kind of war you don't win, then what is the objective of perpetuating it?
Is the state of the Republic now to be perpetual war?
History has demonstrated repeatedly that that doesn't work out so well for the perpetuator.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3228601
That's where I get confused. Security and stability for whom? Are not the Conservatives those who would argue that one cannot exchange freedom for security and those who would do so deserve neither?
There have been arguments about being afraid to use the term "victory" in the context of this conflagration. They have been used to deride Obama, and yet, while Bush used the word, he never defined the conditions whereby victory could be declared, let alone under what circumstances troops would be withdrawn.
If this is the kind of war you don't win, then what is the objective of perpetuating it?
Is the state of the Republic now to be perpetual war?
History has demonstrated repeatedly that that doesn't work out so well for the perpetuator.
Secure from insurgents who would use means other than the political process to topple the current government. If a crowd of Tea Baggers with torches and pitchforks was converging on the white house I am sure you wouldn't object to the use of police or even military force to restore order if need be.
The purpose of the war was to remove the threat of WMD's being handed off to terrorists, Yes we had the legal and moral right to invade because of their numerous cease fire violations so don't even go there.
Once we were there it made no sense to place Hussein back in power, once he was exposed as not really having the WMD's it would have been a blood bath if we had anyway. That would have left a power vacuum for the terrorists or Iranians to step into. Couldn't allow that if there was a way to avoid it so we end up here.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3227950
We did not obliterate the Germans or Japanese during WWII, we just offered to ( and showed our ability and resolve)and they gave up.
I would disagree, we rolled right into berlin. And as for Japan, they didn't even bother nuking Tokyo because there was nothing left to bomb...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3227896
Precisely what I wondered when the last administration declared the war won.

Hey Bush wasn't perfect.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3228654
Secure from insurgents who would use means other than the political process to topple the current government.
I go back to my original question: security for whom? By that logic, the founding fathers were, according to "Mad" King George III, terrorists, no?
If a crowd of Tea Baggers with torches and pitchforks was converging on the white house I am sure you wouldn't object to the use of police or even military force to restore order if need be.

I'm not so sure. On some level or another that's a judgment call. The guys with the torches and pitchforks were the ones who thought Dr. Frankenstein was on the wrong track, right?
Not only that, but if I object to someone else's right to free speech, then I have to accept that my same right will, at some point, be abrogated.
The purpose of the war was to remove the threat of WMD's being handed off to terrorists,
So I've been told. Not sure I believe that was the real reason.
Yes we had the legal and moral right to invade because of their numerous cease fire violations so don't even go there.
Legal and moral are vastly different things.
Once we were there it made no sense to place Hussein back in power
Agreed. Why'd GHW Bush let it happen then?
once he was exposed as not really having the WMD's it would have been a blood bath if we had anyway. That would have left a power vacuum for the terrorists or Iranians to step into. Couldn't allow that if there was a way to avoid it so we end up here.
True. That's why Poland was not allowed to remain a country in pre-WWI Europe. The Prussian, Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires could not abide a democracy in the presence of their dictatorships. A free populace was too big a threat to Wilhelm, Katerina and Franz Joseph the easterbunny guy. (Who were all, ironically enough, the nieces and nephews of Victoria and Albert...)
Turning Iraq into a democracy (as if enforcing Democracy weren't oxymoronic enough a concept) will threaten the House of Saud, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to the extent that if we were successful in installing a democracy in Iraq in the first place, the moment we leave it would have to be crushed.
We learned nothing from the British when Winston Churchill originally drew those lines in the sand back in the 1920's...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3229055
Turning Iraq into a democracy (as if enforcing Democracy weren't oxymoronic enough a concept) will threaten the House of Saud, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to the extent that if we were successful in installing a democracy in Iraq in the first place, the moment we leave it would have to be crushed.
We learned nothing from the British when Winston Churchill originally drew those lines in the sand back in the 1920's...
That is why we should do what we've done in other countries we've defeated in war. Leave a few bases there... Have we not learned from the history of what happens when we abandon a country?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3229055
I go back to my original question: security for whom? By that logic, the founding fathers were, according to "Mad" King George III, terrorists, no?

I'm not so sure. On some level or another that's a judgment call. The guys with the torches and pitchforks were the ones who thought Dr. Frankenstein was on the wrong track, right?
Not only that, but if I object to someone else's right to free speech, then I have to accept that my same right will, at some point, be abrogated.
So I've been told. Not sure I believe that was the real reason. Legal and moral are vastly different things.
Agreed. Why'd GHW Bush let it happen then?
True. That's why Poland was not allowed to remain a country in pre-WWI Europe. The Prussian, Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires could not abide a democracy in the presence of their dictatorships. A free populace was too big a threat to Wilhelm, Katerina and Franz Joseph the easterbunny guy. (Who were all, ironically enough, the nieces and nephews of Victoria and Albert...)
Turning Iraq into a democracy (as if enforcing Democracy weren't oxymoronic enough a concept) will threaten the House of Saud, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to the extent that if we were successful in installing a democracy in Iraq in the first place, the moment we leave it would have to be crushed.
We learned nothing from the British when Winston Churchill originally drew those lines in the sand back in the 1920's...
1) I N S U R G E N T S.
2) People carrying torches and pitchforks aren't going to be there to express freedom of speech.
3) Iraq violated the cease fire numerous times as well as UN resolution regarding they allow access to the WMD installations. Having our pilots being shot at gave us the moral right to blow the hell out of the country. As far as motive there really isn't a credible alternative to why it was done. Nobody withing out government was dense enough to think we could get a financial gain out of it and I don't buy the revenge BS either.
4) George the first shouldn't have agreed to leave Hussien in place. Said it then and still believe it.
5) Taking the opportunity to create an Islamic democracy was a good idea for the reasons you mention.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3229189
4) George the first shouldn't have agreed to leave Hussien in place. Said it then and still believe it.
The reason he didn't is because he knew the american people would not handle such a war. we would be there a long time engaging the enemy and maintaining a large force in country to sustain order. I guess he did understand the American people very well. Turns out he was right.