Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

stupid leftist arguements... about 9.11

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by jekbrown, May 21, 2002.

  1. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,026
    Likes Received:
    360
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    is anyone else getting tired of morons in the leftist-media with respect to their arguements against counter attacking against terrorism? I go to a pretty liberal college (portland state university) and I read the same STUPID arguements on a daily basis in our school paper. You know the ones... like "violence never solves anything". Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If we didn't use violence to stop the Nazis/Japanese, we'd all be speaking different languages right now and living under the boot of totalitarian regimes. The fact is there are some people in the world (nazis, arab terrorists etc) that absolutely, posetively, can NOT be reasoned or negotiated with. If you try reason with them, they only see that as a sign of weakness and will attack you again and again. By using force against peeps like this, you aren't "lowering yourself to their level"... you're merely defending yourself via the only means available. The left seems to think that if we give away food/money to the poor in the middle east and every once in a while have a virtual group-hug with the terrorists, that they will quit attacking us. GOOD GRIEF! We helped Islamic people in Yugoslavia, in Somalia, in Kuwait, and in Afghanistan and the only response we get is more and MORE terrorist attacks. We need to quit trying to give the radicals hugs and start giving them a kick in the a$$.

    The other classic arguement is that "nothing we do militarily can end the threat of terrorist attacks"... which is alway followed by "we must rethink out foriegn policy in the middle east". Okay, lets think about this. Is killing/stopping every terrorist worldwide possible? Prolly not.... but why does this make the effort to do so less worth while? Its like saying, "putting criminals in jail doesn't stop crime, so lets just empty the prisons and quit arresting people!". Absolutely silly. We have to do everything we can IMO. The enemy is willing to die to kill us... and half measures aren't going to stop someone like that. With respect to the second half of the leftist position, "rethink our policy"? what should we do? Ask the terrorist what they'd like us to do in the middle east and then do it so they won't attack us any more? Why should murderers dictate to us our foreign policy? Is it not clear that the message that that kind of idea sends is "come over here and kill a bunch of Americans, and we'll do what you want!". Yeah, good idea there!

    As if all that isn't good enough, we have nuts protesting how the hard-core Al Queada guys in GTMO are being treated. They cry if the terrorist doesnt get to see his cleric every day. These guys ARE getting 3 hots and a cot and GREAT medical care... but its never enough. How do our prisoners get treated over there? Well, Daniel Pearl was a captive to the terrorists. How was he treated? We don't have first hand accounts of his daily life as a hostage... what he got to eat or how he was imprisoned... but we DO know that when the terrorists were done with him they sliced his throat on-camera... and then hacked his body into a dozen pieces and threw them in a ditch. Of course, if anyone tries to say that this is a battle of good vs evil, the left immediately jumps on the person that said it, talking about how dangerous it is to draw lines and seperate people into groups (us vs them).

    Gimme a break, this bit of leftism is absolutely nutty... and lacks ANY sort of common sense. Thank gawd that the majority of the American people haven't bought into this poop yet... but with the media putting out stuff like this 24 hrs a day, its only a matter of time before the weak-minded begin to lean the wrong way.

    ok, rant mode off. I'm out.

    J
     
  2. DUKE

    DUKE 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Posts:
    879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davenport Iowa
    I feel your pain, I am going to a leberal college too. I wana hit people for there ignorance, god knows they can not reason these things out themselfs.
     
  3. DUKE

    DUKE 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Posts:
    879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davenport Iowa
    I feel your pain, I am going to a leberal college too. I wana hit people for there ignorance, god knows they can not reason these things out themselfs.
     
  4. Djroffroad

    Djroffroad 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    The next time you come accross one of these people that belives we cannot solve anything with war, listen to them and act interested in what they have to say.

    After they have spoke their mind... HIT THEM HARD IN THE NOSE!!! When they get up, they might be a little upset. Remind them of their stance. When they calm down, HIT THEM AGAIN!!!

    Keep repeating the above procedure until they get the idea. The terrorists will not stop untill we hit back.
     
  5. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,026
    Likes Received:
    360
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    Dj: LOL!!! thats some funny stuff. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif That would prolly solve their ideological confusion. As with most things, real life takes place in the gray areas between ideologies.... so absolutes like "violence NEVER solves ANYTHING" just don't fly... as your example would prove even to a leftist. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

    J
     
  6. AGM73k5

    AGM73k5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portland OREGON
    I'll throw a big IMHO here:

    <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


    Is killing/stopping every terrorist worldwide possible? Prolly not.... but why does this make the effort to do so less worth while? We have to do everything we can IMO. The enemy is willing to die to kill us... and half measures aren't going to stop someone like that.


    <hr></blockquote>

    Can't kill them all, as you said. Also death doesn't seem to stop matter much to a bomber. They already plan to die, their impact can be minimized but they still come. If there was a way to stop them, I think Israel would've found it. They've already spread out of the middle east into most of europe and asia. So at this point action any action, even nuking and paving all of the middle east, won't stop them. I think that's part of where the second part comes from.

    <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


    With respect to the second half of the leftist position, "rethink our policy"? what should we do? Ask the terrorist what they'd like us to do in the middle east and then do it so they won't attack us any more? Why should murderers dictate to us our foreign policy? Is it not clear that the message that that kind of idea sends is "come over here and kill a bunch of Americans, and we'll do what you want!". Yeah, good idea there!


    <hr></blockquote>

    [imho]
    It is unfortunate that that is how changing policy can now be seen. Some foreign policy is ugly and probably should be changed, we are allied with a dictatorial theocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and other countries. We do business with countries after military coups, in some cases possibly backing those coups over democratic leaders. We fund Israel, right or wrong that is part of what makes provokes them. As far as my own feelings, we don't need allies that are oppressive. We don't need allies that support terrorists. We don't need allies that "steal" from neighbors. As terrible as it is to see kids/civillians die in war, the US military cannot be the world's police. We can help refuges and broker peace talks but I don't think American troops who signed up to defend the Constitution should be used for purposes other than that. If there are terrorists we need to get let's find them and get them, but let's get the troops home.
    [imho]

    <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


    As if all that isn't good enough, we have nuts protesting how the hard-core Al Queada guys in GTMO are being treated. They cry if the terrorist doesnt get to see his cleric every day. These guys ARE getting 3 hots and a cot and GREAT medical care... but its never enough. How do our prisoners get treated over there? Well, Daniel Pearl was a captive to the terrorists. How was he treated? We don't have first hand accounts of his daily life as a hostage... what he got to eat or how he was imprisoned... but we DO know that when the terrorists were done with him they sliced his throat on-camera... and then hacked his body into a dozen pieces and threw them in a ditch. Of course, if anyone tries to say that this is a battle of good vs evil, the left immediately jumps on the person that said it, talking about how dangerous it is to draw lines and seperate people into groups (us vs them).


    <hr></blockquote>

    I think alot of those feelings developed prior to information being released about their treatment. Have they been convicted of a crime or are they guilty by association? The ones that are convicted should be treated as criminals. The ones that are not convicted should be free to go. If they are not convicted, but are a threat, then they'd be POW's right? We treat them as we'd ask our POW's be treated so as not to add to the pile of reasons to hate us. Not catering to the terrorists, but acting in a way that follows with international agreements and our own countries justice system. One of the danger in not treating them with some humanity is that may not just provoke terrorists, but provoke those that are suspicious of the US abroad. That may cause more people to side with the terrorists, which makes our task even more difficult. Allowing various civilians, Congress and the Red Cross among them, to visit the detainees and give independent verification of the conditions is and will be helpful as their detainment continues.

    Off-topic, I went to Portland State for two terms wasn't very impressed. I think the crud you have to put up with there is greater than "leftist-students". There seems to be a general stupidity/ego that goes through most of the students and adminstrators that I met.

    -Aaron

    EDIT: Shoot, I lost the part about somalia/kuwait etc. Hrm. Basically just defend the Constitution of the USA and don't make allies for economic purposes and then use US troops to defend them. I can clarify that later if need be /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

    And close my big IMHO here.
     
  7. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    I don't know Dude. My parents tried that on my arse when I was a kid and I never did get the point /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
     
  8. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,026
    Likes Received:
    360
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    &gt; Can't kill them all, as you said. Also death doesn't seem to
    &gt; stop matter much to a bomber.

    actually death does matter to a terrorist... they wanna carry out their attack and in doing so die... they don't just wanna die... if they did, they'd just take to many pain pills or something. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Their missions means more to them than life.... so the ultimate counter is to kill them BEFORE they can carry out their mission. No 40 virgins, no paradise... just the express elevator to hell.

    &gt; If there was a way to stop them, I think Israel would've
    &gt; found it.

    yes and no. Stopping them is clearly very difficult, but at the same time so was beating the Nazis. Just because the French failed doesn't mean that we couldn't do it. Same with the Jews.... but IMO they would have whooped terrorism LONG ago if they didn't have us constantly holding them back. It would NOT have been hard for the jews to, after one of their wars with the arab states, to create Korea-esque DMZs around their country... ones in which if you try to cross it anywhere but at the specified entry points (where they REALLY check you out) you GET SHOT. It would work pretty well IMO. An occassional attack may get through, but at least it wouldn't be an attack every single day.


    &gt; They've already spread out of the middle east into most of
    &gt; europe and asia. So at this point action any action, even
    &gt; nuking and paving all of the middle east, won't stop them. I
    &gt; think that's part of where the second part comes from.

    Well, in that theoretical, the terrorist would still be dealt a serious blow. They may have inflitrated all kinds of countries, but its pretty hard to set up large terrorist training camps in Switzerland... /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Not to mention that a GREAT deal of the funding and "legal" documentation for these yahoos comes from middle-eastern nations. Without that support they'd be much more hard pressed to carry out attacks. We know that many of the Sept 11th attackers lived here for many months (or years) and never had jobs... need funding for that kinda lifestyle.

    &gt;[imho]
    &gt;It is unfortunate that that is how changing policy can now
    &gt; be seen. Some foreign policy is ugly and probably should
    &gt; be changed, we are allied with a dictatorial theocratic
    &gt; regimes in Saudi Arabia and other countries.

    good point there... the Saudi regime really isnt a friend of the US anyway. They act like they are because its in their best interest right now... but that doesnt make one an ally. A majority of the 9-11 terrorists are from Saudi Arabia... and that government/culture is still funding terrorism in Israel... so its pretty hard for me to consider them a "friend".

    &gt; We do business with countries after military coups, in some
    &gt; cases possibly backing those coups over democratic
    &gt; leaders.

    also not generally a good thing. At the same time, its not always the WORST that can happen. I think in the case of say, Pakistan, supporting the military coup was prolly the best of some really bad options. I mean, had that NOT happened, its entirely possible that fanatics (ideological brothers of Bin Laden) would have taken over that country... and whomever controls Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal. Had radicals taken over, NYC may have been leveled in a nuclear fireball on 9-11. I think its safe to say that its a good thing it wasnt.

    &gt; We fund Israel, right or wrong that is part of what makes
    &gt; provokes them.

    The day after 9-11 I prolly would have doubled that funding. The fact is, so long as we support Israel's right to *exist* as a nation and people, fanatics over there will continue to hate us. It doesn't matter to them if we send $ or not. We send money to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority too... does that gain us any favor? no. Again, unless we stand back and allow the eradication of every jew in the middle east, we will be the enemy of the arab terrorist. I dunno about you, but I think enough Jews got killed in WWII.

    &gt; As far as my own feelings, we don't need allies that are
    &gt; oppressive. We don't need allies that support terrorists. We
    &gt; don't need allies that "steal" from neighbors.

    we agree here! People in the state department love to talk about "coalition building" and all that crap... the fact is we have about 2-3 real allies (out of 200+ countries!). The UK, Canada, and (perhaps) the Germans are it. Everyone else just helps us out when its convenient, beneficial to them, or not very expensive.

    &gt; As terrible as it is to see kids/civillians die in war, the US
    &gt; military cannot be the world's police. We can help refuges
    &gt; and broker peace talks but I don't think American troops
    &gt; who signed up to defend the Constitution should be used
    &gt; for purposes other than that. If there are terrorists we need
    &gt; to get let's find them and get them, but let's get the troops
    &gt; home.

    again, we agree here. Kick a$$ and bring the boys home... always a good idea in a war. In the oblique, another thing that annoys me is how people are SOOOOO dang scared of US military casualties in this war. If one guy gets killed, its somehow a major military defeat. I got news for the weenys out there, and I'm a former Marine grunt... if I was given the choice between losing the 3k innocent civilians we did on 9-11... and losing 6k marines in combat vs the enemy... I'd take the later every day of the week... and twice on Sunday. Its the military guy's job and duty to fight (and if necessary die) to defend the civilians who can't. Thats all that they are there for. Gawd knows I hope we don't lose anyone, and I mourn for each guy we do lose... but at the same time we can't be sooo fearfull of that eventuality that we fail to complete whatever the mission may be... cause if we do it only increases the chances that more innocent civilians will die later.

    &gt; I think alot of those feelings developed prior to information
    &gt; being released about their treatment. Have they been
    &gt; convicted of a crime or are they guilty by association?

    Well, from what I understand only the hardest of the hardcore were taken to GTMO... and some of the mistakes that have been made (detaining someone by accident/association), these peeps, when ID'd, have been set free. You can't ask for much more than that. It'll take a while for a kind of legal resolution to take place, whether that be tribunals or regular court cases. Either way, it isn't going to happen over night and there really isn't anything we can do about that that would be fair and right.

    &gt; The ones that are convicted should be treated as criminals.
    &gt; The ones that are not convicted should be free to go. If
    &gt; they are not convicted, but are a threat, then they'd be
    &gt; POW's right?

    depends on the individual. You have to be careful who you attach the "POW" name tag too. This is mainly because if you are a POW, you can't be easily charged with murder (killing is, after all, a soldiers job). Now I don't know how these things are going to be worked out... but if it was me, your average Taliban grunt guy would be treated as a POW. An enemy, but a legitimate enemy soldier none the less. Your average Al Queda guy on the other hand would be treated in much the same way as a spy (as any ununiformed combatant who is captured is)... and would NOT be given POW-type rights. Such guys COULD be charged with murder etc etc. Now don't get me wrong, I think that ALL prisoners should be treated well. Get the meals, medical attention, and shelter that they need (prolly better than any they had in afghanistan!)... my point was that I am tired of the American left raising hell over how we treat them as prisoners... and don't really give a rip how are people are treated. If they wanna protest or send letters to editors about mistreatment, they oughta be sending them to afghanistan... not to american papers.

    &gt; We treat them as we'd ask our POW's be
    &gt; treated so as not to add to the pile of reasons to hate us.

    lol, does anyone really think they care how their prisoners are treated? These guys are suicidal and hate us without regard to how well prisoners are treated.

    &gt; One of the danger in not treating them with some humanity
    &gt; is that may not just provoke terrorists

    yeah, they might torture/kill the captives they have taken!

    &gt; but provoke those that are suspicious of the US abroad.
    &gt; That may cause more people to side with the terrorists,
    &gt; which makes our task even more difficult. Allowing various
    &gt; civilians, Congress and the Red Cross among them, to visit
    &gt; the detainees and give independent verification of the
    &gt; conditions is and will be helpful as their detainment
    &gt; continues.

    we agree here. Anything that will show just how moronic the left is about this whole thing is a good idea IMO. These prisoners are being treated pretty dang well IMO. Hell, they get 3 decent meals a day. I'm a "free" American and I don't even get that (starving college student!).

    &gt; Off-topic, I went to Portland State for two terms wasn't
    &gt; very impressed. I think the crud you have to put up with
    &gt; there is greater than "leftist-students". There seems to be a
    &gt; general stupidity/ego that goes through most of the
    &gt; students and adminstrators that I met.

    yeah, kinda scary sometimes. They really need to make the entry requirements more stringent... right now it seems like they let any idiot in. Their architecture dept is generally ok though... so I deal with it. Most of the leftists (as always) are in the various art departments. I have to deal with them on occassion... but not very often, so its still tolerable.

    &gt; Shoot, I lost the part about somalia/kuwait etc. Hrm.
    &gt; Basically just defend the Constitution of the USA and don't
    &gt; make allies for economic purposes and then use US troops
    &gt; to defend them. I can clarify that later if need be

    yeah, i wasn't really supporting us going around doing all kinds of police actions or whatever... I was just pointing out that the general arabic population seems to be VERY short of gratitude. We certainly didn't have to help Islamic people in Yugo/Somalia/Kuwait/Saudi/Afghanistan etc... but we did... and we helped more than any arab nation did and they still don't give a crap. Its the same old "death to America, death to the Jews" line that its always been. IMO, next time islamic guys are in trouble somewhere, we just say "screw 'em".. let the arab states deal with it if they are so damned cool.

    j
     
  9. AGM73k5

    AGM73k5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portland OREGON
    I I wasn't as clear as I should've been about some things.

    &gt;Can't kill them all, as you said. Also death doesn't seem to
    &gt;stop matter much to a bomber.

    I meant that to mean, even if you can pick off 99% of them, I think they'll still keep coming. Not that kililng them doesn't piss them off, but kililng them doesn't stop them entirely. Indeed preventing them from doing their terrorist act is good. But it isn't a full solution alone. I think our disagreement, if any, is here; I think they won't give up, even if they are having 0% success rates.

    &gt; They've already spread out of the middle east into most of
    &gt; europe and asia. So at this point action any action, even
    &gt; nuking and paving all of the middle east, won't stop them. I
    &gt; think that's part of where the second part comes from.

    My intention here, similar to the above. While military action can serve as a strong aid in stopping them, there may be need for other action as well. The Nazi's, while not around as a country/army, still exist in the skinhead groups around today. The terrorists exist at that level as well, scattered and hidden. Destroying the Nazi base, like the terrorist base, while effective to hamper did not eradicate.

    IMO Israel would fall back into a defensible border, pre '67 probably but I'd have to look at a map, and do the DMZ thing. I'd like to see Jerusalem become an international city, controlled by the UN. I think it's to important to the various religions to be left in the control of any single country. One other thing I think Israel faces, is birth rate issues. There are arab/muslim Israelis. They are not radical or dangerous by any means. But their numbers, if they increase faster than those of the Jewish population of Israel, could grow to a majority. What is the state of Israel then?


    &gt;The day after 9-11 I prolly would have doubled that funding. The fact is, so long as we support &gt;Israel's right to *exist* as a nation and people, fanatics over there will continue to hate us. It &gt;doesn't matter to them if we send $ or not. We send money to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority &gt;too... does that gain us any favor? no. Again, unless we stand back and allow the eradication of every &gt;jew in the middle east, we will be the enemy of the arab terrorist. I dunno about you, but I think &gt;enough Jews got killed in WWII.

    I would like to know more about Israel espionage in the US before I supported any more funding for them. I think Israel has some right to exist, as I do any other nation. I don't think the arabs are capable of eradicating Israel even if Israel doesn't have US funding. I don't think the US has a responsibility to make Israel Economically viable. If with a DMZ, Israel cannot support itself, then IMO that is an Israeli problem. Even if Israel ceases to exist, there will still be Jewish people. The demise of Israel, is not the demise of the Jews, it is only the demise of the Jewish state. My feelings aside, my intention was to point out that there are specific reasons that terrorists are angry with us. America wasn't drawn out of a hat as the country to attack but rather targeted. Knowing the reasons for that targeting is valuable in fighting terrorism.

    &gt;In the oblique, another thing that annoys me is how people are SOOOOO dang scared of US military &gt;casualties in this war. If one guy gets killed, its somehow a major military defeat.

    I think part of the problem run into here is politcal motivations. Heavy US casualties are both hard to cover up and hard to get re-elected on. It is more politically convenient, at least it seems to me, to try to avoid US casualties, even if the alternative is increased civillian casualties abroad and/or not completing the job.

    &gt;Its the military guy's job and duty to fight (and if necessary die) to defend the civilians who can't. &gt;Thats all that they are there for. Gawd knows I hope we don't lose anyone, and I mourn for each guy we &gt;do lose... but at the same time we can't be sooo fearfull of that eventuality that we fail to complete &gt;whatever the mission may be... cause if we do it only increases the chances that more innocent &gt;civilians will die later.
    Yup /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

    My point about the treatment of the prisoners is that by mistreating them we stand to lose allies and those who are neutral. Not that Al Qaeda cares, but moderates in Pakistan or Egypt might. I'd rather not give more ammunition to the terrorist recruiting mechanism. Not so much provoking terrorists, but provoking people to join terrorist groups.

    As for PSU: I think they're in the business of making money and power. I think that's the case with most schools. The larger the school is the more the administrators can make and the better their resumes look. The school will also gain power through having more of the city population dependant/involved with their services. Then if they want more land or more public money they've got a larger population to support them and higher enrollment numbers to show people are interested in the school and it needs to expand.

    As for the Arab populations and our involvement. Part of the problem is some of the involvement we've had has had negative aspects. Kuwait vs. Iraq probably doesn't earn us alot of Iraqi fans. Iran vs. Iraq doesn't make the Iranians like us. We give money to the countries but it's not to the people in the street, it's to the leaders. Situations like Pakistan, where a dictator seizes power and we end up backing him, hurt us too. We have reasons, but sometimes they become muddled, or come at the expense of others. So while from this end it looks alright, it's not received well on that end. IMHO one of the biggest problems with our policy in that area is that portions of it seem led more by economic interests, oil, over humanitarian interests. I'm not sure if Arab states would see it that way, but I think about it sometimes /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Just leaving them alone may be a step in the right direction from the view of the masses.

    -Aaron
     

Share This Page