Are current US wars justified and moral?

[Zzyzx]

.
Moved from another thread:

Who, exactly, was responsible for the WTC event?

The proposed 19 terrorists were primarily from Saudi Arabia – an “ally�. Why did we not invade that nation instead of nations that cannot be shown to have been involved?

That is not correct, the mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Shekh Mohammed was from Afganistan.

You are DEAD WRONG – he is a Pakistani who was evidently born in Kuwait and captured in Pakistan (both “allies� of the US).

To the best of my knowledge he has not been convicted of being the 9/11 mastermind -- but is accused and imprisoned -- and "questioned" before confessing (see bold below).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also transliterated as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and additionally known by at least fifty aliases)[3][4][5] (born March 1, 1964, or April 14, 1965) is a Pakistani in U.S. custody, Guantamano Bay for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians. He was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission and faces the death penalty if convicted.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time. In September 2006, the U.S. government announced it had moved Mohammed from a secret prison to the facility at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[6] The Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Mohammed have claimed that the harsh treatment and waterboarding he received from U.S. authorities amounts to torture.[7][8]

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing[9] in Guantanamo Bay — confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.[10]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is reported to have been born in Kuwait to parents from Balochistan in Pakistan.[1] He spent some of his formative years in Kuwait, just like his nephew, Ramzi Yousef (three years his junior). He joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age sixteen. He returned to Pakistan soon after, and after spending some time there, went to the United States for further study.

He attended Chowan University, a small Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, for a semester (beginning in 1983) before transferring to the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and completing a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986.[12][13] The following year he went to Afghanistan, where he and his brothers (Zahed, Abed, and Aref) fought against the Soviet Union during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. (Some sources claim that Khalid was fighting in Afghanistan before he moved to the United States.) There, he was introduced to Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, of the Islamic Union Party. The 9/11 Commission Report notes on page 149 that "Sayyaf was close to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance".

The 9/11 Commission Report also notes that, "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."[14]

However, according to a U.S. intelligence summary reported on August 29, 2009 by the Washington Post, his time in the U.S did lead him to become a terrorist. "KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States — which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist," according to this intelligence summary. "He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country."[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Bold added

Do you deny that the 19 people identified as carrying out the 9/11 event are primarily Saudi Arabian?

Considering Saudi Arabia has a stable government with a King also committed to fighting the war on terror, we have no need to invade.

Others might say that Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the US.

Places like Iraq were ruled by the tyrannical Sadam Hussein who spoke out in favor of the 9/11 conspirators, not only was that nation harboring islamic jihadists, but they also supported their cause.

Do you recommend attacking every nation that is governed by a “tyrant� and/or one who speaks against the US or supports groups opposed to the US (called “terrorists� by some)?

Thank you – INSECURE – as I said.

In my opinion, invading and occupying other nations that cannot be shown to have been involved was a massive blunder by frightened people.

Yes, the United States would not have attakced a country if our national security and foreign interests were not at risk.

Kindly show the actual risk posed to the US by Iraq and Afghanistan – enough to produce FEAR to justify invading another nation.

And since the governments of the countries we are occupying cannot successfully eliminate the terrorists by their own means, our help is neccesary.

Do you recommend that the US “help� governments of all nations (against their will if necessary) if they cannot “successfully eliminate the terrorists� (by whose standards)?

You'll see no complaing from the current iraq government are Harmed Karzi.

You don’t suppose (just suppose) that the current Iraqi government is a tiny bit beholden to the US, do you? Of course not. It is a free and independent democratic nation. Right?

Many nations of the world “harbor� groups or individuals hostile to the US. Shall we invade all of them?

Many of the world’s nations are actively opposed to the US – including Russia, China, Venezuela. Shall we invade them also?

If groups within those states attack us and the governments are not able to contend with the threat, then yes, we should invade them, out of fear of another attack.

If a group from Russia was to crash a plane into the Empire State Building, we should INVADE Russia – right?

Out of FEAR of another such attack we should GO TO WAR with Russia?????

And even with the occupation of the middle east, we've still seen 2 attempted foreign attacks on this country, and one successful domestic attack.

RIGHT. Evidently what we are doing is NOT working. It is NOT preventing other attacks.

So what have we accomplished (other than making additional enemies)?

Against whom did we retaliate? Afghanistan and Iraq have not been shown to have been involved. If a small group (say 19) from the US commits hostile acts in the homeland of another nation, is that nation justified in invading and occupying the US?

Prior to 2001, Afganistan was being run by Islamic Facists and a taliban government and Iraq was being ruled by a ruthless dictator who spoke in favor of the 9/11 suicide bombers.

Quite a few of the world’s nations are run by “ruthless dictators� and groups that oppose the US. Shall we invade them all?

Cuba is a dictatorship and a <shudder in fear> communist nation. Shall we invade?

Now, what you suggest is wrong, it is not a small group of 19 people, it is a massive chain of terrorist organizations throughout the middle east, with indoctrintational schools and advanced weaponery.

Advanced weaponry????? BOX CUTTERS????? IEDs??????

It is a huge threat to the United States and American lives when you have these people calling for the dimise of the west and the destruction of Israel.

Yes, we should regard box cutters and IEDs as a “huge threat� to the US.

Note that every military action in which the US has engaged since WWII has NOT been a declared war (as required specifically of Congress by the Constitution).

Yes, a declaration of war should be declared on terrorism.

That has been done illegally by presidents – and has failed. Presidents have no power under the Constitution to declare war.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War�.

I do not agree with Mr. Biden’s analysis of Iraq as a “functioning democracy�.

Even if it was, who are we to impose our favored system of government on the people of other nations?

It is not our favored system, it is the right system as it allows direct rule by the people, not some monarchy or Islamic fanatical dictator.

What entitles you to decide what is right for others?

Does that entitlement come with citizenship in the US or with Christian worship practices or personal opinion?

Do propose that other nations do NOT have the right to develop their preferred form of government?

Within the past year has the US threatened other nations?

No.

Are you honestly NOT aware that the US has threatened Iran and North Korea?

Perhaps you are also not aware that the US has threatened Eritrea – a nation of 5 million people (a “real threat� to the US) http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/17/us-t ... e-eritrea/

Are verbal threats basis for invasions? Should any nation we threaten invade the US – or is there a double standard involved?

Who has verbally threatened the United States, or who has the United States verbally threatened? North Korea and Iran are eminent threats, and if the joint chiefs and the defense department see it fit to invade in order to prevent nukes from getting into the hands of a Holocaust denying dictator and a North Korean deraigned king, then we should. Wouldn't you rather have us be proactive and prevent a nuclear war.

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons?

If a dictator denies the Holocaust, shall we attack his nation?

If another nation (say China, Russia or North Korea) regards the US as an “eminent threat�, are they justified in attacking the US?

Or, is the US the only nation that is entitled to attack others it regards as an “eminent threat�?

Should the US start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war?

Should the US risk a nuclear war by threatening, provoking or attacking nuclear armed nations?

In my opinion, our invasions and occupations have produced far more enemies than they have eliminated.

Who? Not world power houses.

Some “world power houses� (and nuclear armed nations) are ALREADY enemies of the US (or strongly opposed to US actions and policies), perhaps including Russia and China (unless they are to be considered friendly nations or allies).

Do either of those nations possess greater ability to harm the US than Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea or Iran?

We have the full support of NATO,

Correction: We have SOME support of NATO. Notice how few NATO nation troops are engaged in warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.

the only enemies we are creating are those anti western terrorists.

You are correct in stating that we ARE creating enemies identified as “anti-western terrorists�. Thank you. That is exactly my point.

How many thousand such enemies do you think it is advisable to create?

that pose a threat to my life and your life.

You are welcome to feel afraid that “terrorists� threaten your life. That is an example of the fear and insecurity I mention.

However, you are not entitled to speak for me. I am NOT afraid of “terrorists� threatening my life.

If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people, would that nation not have created / inspired thousands of enemies among the US population and US allies who would strike back however possible?

Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists

�We are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�??????

Are you serious? Do you not know (or deny) that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousands of civilians – women, children, old people?????

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Estimates

Three cluster studies of violence-related mortality in Iraq have recently been
undertaken. The first two studies were both conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Baghdad’s Al-Mustansiriya University and are commonly referred to in the press as “the Lancet studies� because they were published in the British medical journal of that name. The third study was conducted by a consortium of researchers, many of whom are associated with the World Health Organization, and so the study is commonly referred to as “the WHO study� in the press.

The first of these studies, published in 2004, used a cluster sample survey of
households in Iraq to develop an estimate ranging from 8,000 to 194,000 civilian
casualties due to violent deaths since the start of the war.9 This report has come under
some criticism for its methodology, which may not have accounted for the long-term
negative health effects of the Saddam Hussein era. Former British Foreign Minister Jack
Straw has written a formal Ministerial Response rejecting the findings of the first Lancet
report on the grounds that the data analyzed were inaccurate.10

The second study, published in 2006, increased the number of clusters surveyed from
33 to 47 and reported an estimate of between 426,369 and 793,663 Iraqi civilian deaths
from violent causes since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.11 This article, too,
has sparked some controversy.12 Stephen Moore, a consultant for Gorton Moore
International, objected to the methods used by the researchers, commenting in the Wall
Street Journal that the Lancet article lacked some of the hallmarks of good research: a
small margin of error, a record of the demographics of respondents (so that one can be
sure one has captured a fair representation of an entire population), and a large number
of cluster points.13 On the other hand, documents written by the UK Ministry of
Defence’s chief scientific advisor have come to light, which called the survey’s methods
“close to best practice� and “robust.�14

In the third and most recent study, a team of investigators from the Federal Ministry
of Health in Baghdad, the Kurdistan Ministry of Planning, the Kurdistan Ministry of
Health, the Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology in Baghdad,
and the World Health Organization formed the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS) Study
Group to research violence-related mortality in Iraq.15 In their nationally representative
cluster study, interviewers visited 89.4% of 1,086 household clusters; the household response rate was 96.2%. They concluded that there had been an estimated 151,000
violence-related deaths from March 2003 through June 2006 and that violence was the
main cause of death for men between the ages of 15 and 59 years during the first three
years after the 2003 invasion. This study seems to be widely cited for violence-related
mortality rates in Iraq. Neither the Lancet studies nor the IFHS study make an effort to
distinguish different victims of violence, such as civilians versus police or security force
members.

The Associated Press has kept a database of Iraqi civilian and security forces dead
and wounded since April 2005. According to their database, between April 2005 and
August 10, 2008, 34,832 Iraqi civilians have died and 40,174 have been wounded.16
A number of nonprofit groups have released unofficial estimates of Iraqi civilian
deaths. The Iraq Body Count (IBC) is one source often cited by the media; it bases its
online casualty estimates on media reports of casualties, some of which may involve
security forces as well as civilians. As of August 22, 2008, the IBC estimated that
between 86,661 and 94,558 civilians had died as a result of military action.17 The IBC
documents each of the casualties it records with a media source and provides a minimum
and a maximum estimate.

The Brookings Institution has used modified numbers from the UN Human Rights
Report, the Iraq Body Count, General Petraeus’s congressional testimony given on
September 10-11, 2007, and other sources to develop its own composite estimate for Iraqi
civilians who have died by violence. By combining all of these sources by date, the
Brookings Institution estimates that between May 2003 and August 22, 2008, 113,616
Iraqi civilians have died.18

Finally, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICCC) is another well-known nonprofit
group that tracks Iraqi civilian and Iraqi security forces deaths using an IBC-like method
of posting media reports of deaths. ICCC, like IBC, is prone to the kind of errors likely
when using media reports for data: some deaths may not be reported in the media, while
other deaths may be reported more than once. The ICCC does have one rare feature: it
separates police and soldier deaths from civilian deaths. The ICCC estimates that there
were 43,099 civilian deaths from April 28,2005 through August 22, 2008.19

Do you still maintain that we are not killing people but terrorists?

In my opinion, the attitude and “arguments� you present are evidence of the fear, insecurity and lack of confidence that I mentioned.

A strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by threats by “pipsqueaks�.

Considering the way Russia reacted to a minor threat from Georgia by launching all out war, and considering the fact the France has declared to retaliate with Nuclear weapons on any domestic attack, and consdiering America just signed a treaty with Russia to reduce the amount of war heads we had (that France did not join in with) I'm afraid your claim that America is insecure does not hold under all these events.

I stand by my statement that a strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by “pipsqueaks� – and that attack of such pipsqueak nations that posed no threat to the US is evidence of LACK of strength and confidence.

I am not persuaded by arguments involving the foreign policies of Russia and France. Are you offering them as examples of strength and confidence or weakness and lack of confidence?

It is my opinion that the US has lost a great deal of respect among the world’s nations and citizens by invading nations that obviously posed no threat to its national security (and is being fought to a stalemate or a loss by a “rag-tag group of insurgents�). There appear to be similarities between the current wars and the Vietnam war – a national disgrace in my opinion.

It is noteworthy that the US constitutes 5% of the world population. It is not wise, in my opinion, to attempt to determine how the other 95% shall live and conduct their affairs or govern themselves. Nor is it wise, in my opinion, to attempt to coerce or purchase “friendship�.


Questions for debate:

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

2) Is it a wise move for the US to spend one Trillion dollars of borrowed money to pursue the current wars?

[I AM ALL I AM]

Kindly show the actual risk posed to the US by Iraq and Afghanistan –enough to produce FEAR to justify invading another nation.

I recommend "attacking" those countries that harbor and support the terrorists who attack us. As I said, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are somewhat stable Muslim States that have an army capable to fighting the taliban military forces. Iraq did not, and to the contrary supported these Jidhad groups.

G'day Winepusher.

Do you realise that you are condoning the invasion of sovereign nations ?

With the same justifications, other countries would be justified in invading America.

Are your justifications based upon religious reasoning and/or imperialistic national policies ?

Personally, I find you to be woefully uninformed about world events and the part in them that America has played. This could be attributed to the propaganda that is fed to the American population via the main stream media. Though with internet access, it is incumbent upon you to look elsewhere to be fully informed about world events and not simply believe whatever you are told by those funding and perpetrating wars, as well as profiting from those wars, prior to forming opinions about those events.

There are numerous articles on the internet (some of which I have listed below) that show the complicity of the US government through the CIA in funding 'terrorist' organisations. There are also numerous documentaries that also present this evidence, much of it from individuals that were directly involved while employed by the US government.

You can also access numerous books written about these issues on the internet to become fully informed.

After having read your post, I was reminded of something that I read in a novel by Terry Goodkind ...

"Truth has advocates who seek understanding," Richard said. "Corrupt ideas have miserable little fanatics who attempt to enforce their beliefs through intimidation and brutality . . . through faith. Savage force is faith's obedient servant. Violence on an apocalyptic scale can only be born of faith because reason, by its very nature, disarms senseless cruelty. Only faith thinks to justify it."

The Sword of Truth series.


Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

The Devil in the Details: The CIA and Saddam Hussein

Saddam Was key in early CIA plot

Saddam Hussein: America's man in Iraq

How the CIA found and groomed Saddam Hussein

Fake Al Qaeda
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ." -- Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook

Former British Foreign Secretary: Al Qaeda is Not a Real Group, Just a U.S. Propaganda Campaign

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication
BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice� namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations� such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group� or criminal organization they could “legally� go after.

The video can be watched at the link above on google video, or at the link below on youtube ...

The Power of Nightmares Volume 1 Part 1 of 6


The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA….

Opium Connection Afghanistan - US

The Unholy CIA – ISI connection to jeopardize Humanity. The ISI is directly connected with Islamists everywhere. CIA is Patron of them.

Osama bin Laden's Bush family Business Connections

Alliance With Pakistan Will Stimulate Drug Trade, Bring Revenues Under U.S. Control - Colombian Opium Production Will Soar

The Taliban's Biggest Economic Attack on the U.S. Came in February With The Destruction of Its Opium Crop



THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA

How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries.
John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. He spent 13 years in the agency. He gives a short history of CIA covert operations. He is a very compelling speaker and the highest level CIA officer to testify to the Congress about his actions. He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980's.


Why the Bush family invaded Iraq

In this clip from "Speaking Freely, Vol. 1", John Perkins explains the U.S. desire to control the Iraq oil reserves and how the CIA sent an assasination team led by Saddam Hussein to take out Abdel Karim Kassema.


Tomsen served as President George H.W. Bush's special envoy and ambassador to the Afghan resistance from 1989 to 1992. Here he lays out the historical background of the Taliban's rise to power and its relationship with Pakistani intelligence, known by its acronym ISI. He also explains the two fears driving Pakistan's Afghanistan policy -- India and Pashtun nationalism. Tomsen believes the ISI knows exactly where Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawarhiri are hiding, and that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is not fully cooperating with the U.S. "I don't think we're getting our money's worth, and I think we have to take a tougher line," he tells FRONTLINE. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Aug. 10, 2006.

* Some highlights from this interview
* The historic relationship between Pakistani intelligence and the Taliban
* How U.S. funds paid for bin Laden training camps
* Who is Jalaluddin Haqqani?
* Should we worry about Musharraf's loyalty?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... omsen.html

[I AM ALL I AM]

... Questions for debate:

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

2) Is it a wise move for the US to spend one Trillion dollars of borrowed money to pursue the current wars?

G'day Zzyzx.

Having joined in on this thread, it would be polite to actually respond to the OP questions, so here is my response to your two questions ...

1) Both "justified and moral" are subjective terms. Personally I would say "No".

The 'official' justifications are based upon misleading information and outright lies (weapons of mass destruction being one lie). To base a justification upon lies would be considered from almost all moralistic viewpoints to actually be immoral. So, once again the answer would be no.

2) It is wise for those looking to profit from the wars.

For those that are killed for this to be accomplished, for those footing the bill for the wars, no, it is not a wise course of action.

[Goat]

The director of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired sheihk 100,000 dollars a few months before the 911 attack.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html

So a bunch of induendo's based on newspaper articles in europe in 2001 lead to this vast conspiracy that the U.S. government was behind it?

You got to be joking me that you consider that 'evidence'.

why should we not consider this evidence?

1) The source is vague at best
2) The information is mainly innuendo, and hard on facts.
3) There are no specific references, and things have to be 'assumed'

[sickles]

The director of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired sheihk 100,000 dollars a few months before the 911 attack.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html

So a bunch of induendo's based on newspaper articles in europe in 2001 lead to this vast conspiracy that the U.S. government was behind it?

You got to be joking me that you consider that 'evidence'.

why should we not consider this evidence?

1) The source is vague at best
2) The information is mainly innuendo, and hard on facts.
3) There are no specific references, and things have to be 'assumed'

why dont you check out the sources before you denounce the claim? not a true skeptic are we?

[1] Peter Dale Scott, "The CIA's Secret Powers: Afghanistan, 9/11, and America's Most Dangerous Enemy." Critical Asian Studies, 35:2 (2003), 233-258.

[2] Cf. Griffin, 109-10. The investigators were later identified as the FBI (Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01, CNN, 10/28/01, Times [London], 11/16/01).

[3] E.g. Newsweek, 3/13/02: US officials suspect "that Sheikh has been a `protected asset,' of Pakistan's shadowy spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI." The story was enhanced by Indian intelligence sources with a more sensational claim: that Saeed Sheikh had wired the money to Atta at the direction of Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time (Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01). Indian sources later downplayed this anti-Pakistani allegation by suggesting that the money came instead from a ransom paid through a `hawala' channel to another terrorist, Aftab Ansari in Dubai, when the Kolkata businessman was kidnapped in July 2001 (The Hindu, 2/13/02).

[4] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/3/02: "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA. The theory is that with such intense pressure to locate bin Laden, Saeed Sheikh was bought and paid for." The twisted story of Saeed Sheikh in the US press has been documented by Paul Thompson in his excellent time-line of 9/11 events: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essa ... aeedsheikh.

[5] London Sunday Times, 4/21.02; London Daily Telegraph, 7/16/02.

[6] CNN, 10/1/01: "As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta." Subsequent developments lent weight to the Pakistani connection, such as the arrest of Atta's alleged controls, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in Pakistan.

[7] Newsday, 10/3/01: "Mustafa Ahmad... left the emirates for Pakistan on the day of the attacks." Cf. New York Times, 10/15/01: "A man thought to be one of the financial chiefs for Mr. bin Laden, Shaykh Said... flew to Karachi, Pakistan."

[8] Report, 436.

[9] Report, 251.

[10] Cf. e.g. MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_gl ... ht_uae.htm

[Zzyzx]

.
What is this called?

If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people, would that nation not have created / inspired thousands of enemies among the US population and US allies who would strike back however possible?

Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists

�We are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�??????

Are you serious? Do you not know (or deny) that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousands of civilians – women, children, old people?????

Tell me, did the United States invade with the intent to MURDER CIVILIANS?

Switcheroo – you claimed that “we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�.

When I show that you are DEAD WRONG – that we ARE killing innocent people (non-terrorists – including women, children and old people), you try to change the subject. Shame on you for using dishonorable tactics.

Is your argument so weak that it requires such tactics?

Our is it the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda groups engage in gorilla warfare and hide behind Children and Woman as SHIELDS.

Does that explain ALL or even most civilian deaths? If you think so, kindly provide documentation.

It is tragic that innocent lives are lost,

Thank you. That is my point. Innocent lives ARE lost. We ARE killing innocent people – whether by intent or mistake or “collateral damage� does NOT change the statement. We ARE killing innocent people.

but I hope you are not suggesting that we are intentionally killing innocents,

Did you see “intentionally killing innocents� in anything I said – or are you making that up as a straw man?

some of us have family fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, it would be OUTRAGEOUS for anyone to equate of military men and woman to treacherous murders.?

Some US military personnel (and hired contractors) HAVE been convicted of deliberately killing Iraqis. Do you deny that has happened?

You are DEAD WRONG – he is a Pakistani who was evidently born in Kuwait and captured in Pakistan (both “allies� of the US).

You are right, I must have mis-read my source.

You seem to make a lot of mistakes – always in favor of the “argument� you try to present.

Was it you who also claimed that “water turns into wine every day� when trying to “explain� a bible tale?

To the best of my knowledge he has not been convicted of being the 9/11 mastermind -- but is accused and imprisoned -- and "questioned" before confessing (see bold below).

He has not officially been convicted as they do not yet know where to hold hs trial. Also, questioning and interrogration are usually the normal means to extract information from a person.......

It seems inconsistent that a nation that prides itself on “justice for all� and “right to a speedy trial� would imprison someone four years claiming “not yet know where to hold his trial�.

There is evidence that torture was conducted at Guantanamo Bay prison – and a suggestion that it was applied to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Does that cast any doubt upon a confession?

Do you deny that the 19 people identified as carrying out the 9/11 event are primarily Saudi Arabian?

Of Course not, they are indeed identified as coming from Saudi Arabia. Do you deny the fact that Al-Qaeuda and the Taliban were the primary orchaestrators of 9/11 and their existence streches far from Saudi Arabia.

I do not accept -- nor doubt -- the involvement of Al-Qaeda because I am not confident that I have enough truthful information on which to base a decision.

Do you have a source of information that you can certify as being truthful?

Others might say that Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the US.

Because Saudi Arabia is committed to fighting a war on terrorism to prevent loss of innocent life, they are automatically a puppet of the United States?

Is willingness to “fight a war on terrorism� the ONLY reason that Saudi Arabia might be considered a puppet of the US? Could the presence of US bases on their soil be considered?

Do you recommend attacking every nation that is governed by a “tyrant� and/or one who speaks against the US or supports groups opposed to the US (called “terrorists� by some)?

I recommend "attacking" those countries that harbor and support the terrorists who attack us.

That recommendation might involve the US in quite a few wars. How many wars do you think the US should conduct at one time?

As I said, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are somewhat stable Muslim States that have an army capable to fighting the taliban military forces. Iraq did not, and to the contrary supported these Jidhad groups.

Kindly show the actual risk posed to the US by Iraq and Afghanistan –enough to produce FEAR to justify invading another nation.

At that time, the risk that we thought was being posed were Weapons of Mass Destructions in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Granted, there were none found,

Evidently a MASSIVE mistake was made based on faulty “intelligence� (or perhaps deliberate deception). I have no idea what led to the mistakes because a great deal of secrecy and disinformation have been involved.

but our troops remained in there and successfully developed a counter insugencey and a functioning democracy, to the point that we are able to declare that war a success.

Declaring the war a “success� is comparable to declaring victory in a debate – presumptuous and inappropriate. I regard the Iraq war as about as “successful� as the Vietnam war.

Do you recommend that the US “help� governments of all nations (against their will if necessary) if they cannot “successfully eliminate the terrorists� (by whose standards)?

I recommend American intervention is our national security is in jeopardy.

I do not disagree PROVIDE that there is a CLEAR and PRESNT danger directly to the US. That does NOT include invented or imagined “danger� that cannot be fairly, honestly and openly presented to Congress – and a declaration of war by Congress.

You see, we are now able to look back 8 years and observe the reapings of these two wars. Notice that there as not been one single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11,

There were no terrorist attacks on US soil PRIOR to 1980. What wars account for that “success�?

I credit the Bush Administration's anti terrorism policies and the middle eastern occupation. Thus, the outcome of these wars is beneficial as there have been no foreign assults on America.

Of course you do.

Now, what would you have done in light of 9/11 and growing tensions in the middle east? Not invade, not try to capture these killers, just sit back and show the world that they can attack America without any fear of retribution?

I am not privy to information at the level necessary to make such decisions, and neither are you.

Based upon what information has been made available, I would NOT have recommended attacking nations that were not directly involved. I would NOT have recommended invading Iraq on the basis of questionable or false “intelligence� concerning WMDs. I would NOT have recommended invading Iraq “to free people from a dictator�. I would not have recommended making war on Afghanistan based on claims of “supporting terrorism�.

I would NOT have made war without a declaration of war by Congress as clearly stipulated in the US Constitution.

I WOULD have recommended demonstrating to the other 95% of the world’s population that the US is a nation of LAW – not emotion. I would have recommended that the perpetrators and those involved be brought to justice LEGALLY.

You don’t suppose (just suppose) that the current Iraqi government is a tiny bit beholden to the US, do you? Of course not. It is a free and independent democratic nation. Right?

I can suppose whatever I want. However, I would rather not "suppose" things (as you suggest). I observe that the appreciation that Harmed Karzi has expressed towards General McCrystal

Evidently General McCrystal disagrees with presidential policy and conduct of the wars. Are you not aware that he openly differed with the “Commander in Chief� and was relieved of command?

and I observe that Iraq has hald a couple free elections and that there was massive turnout. Now, you can reject all this and "suppose" whatever you wis.

I am impressed with the level of “democracy� in Iraq – OR that imposing “democracy� on that nation is a wise move.

Many of the world’s nations are actively opposed to the US – including Russia, China, Venezuela. Shall we invade them also?

Do organizations inside those countries wish for our dimise,

I have no idea – and neither do you.

and attack us relentlessly,

In my opinion, no organizations have attacked the US “relentlessly�. However, I think that the US has encouraged attacks (by whatever means available) in retaliation for US actions abroad (i.e., in their nations).

and did these organizations inside these countries hijak planes and fly them into landmark buildings killing thousands of innocent American Lives?

By engaging in wars and occupations, the US has CHOSEN to have FAR MORE of its citizens (soldiers) die than the number killed in the WTC event – and chosen to kill FAR MORE innocent civilians than died in the WEC. Evidently loss of life is not a major consideration.

If a group from Russia was to crash a plane into the Empire State Building, we should INVADE Russia – right?

Where did I suggest that, and since your speaking hypothetically and creating any fake situation that would help support your point, would the Russian government be activily supporting this terrorist group? Or would the Russians seek to fight them and prevent his sort of travesty from occuring again?

For purposes of discussion, assume that a group within Russia (with or without direct government support), crashed a plane into a major US building. Would you then recommend invading Russia?

Assume now, that the Russian government DID support the group. Would you then recommend that the US go to war with Russia?

Or, do you favor only attacking “pipsqueak� nations that cannot retaliate militarily?

Out of FEAR of another such attack we should GO TO WAR with Russia?????

Do you understand that currently, in the middle east, we are not at war with in particular country?

Perhaps it would be a bit difficult to convince Iraq and Afghanistan citizens (and citizens of other world nations) that is a true statement.

Have you noticed that we are working proactivly with the armies of Afganistan and the Counter Insurgence in Iraq to achieve the same goal?

That is what the British might have said during the Revolution when they allied with the Torres and fought against the “insurgents�.

RIGHT. Evidently what we are doing is NOT working. It is NOT preventing other attacks.

Please refresh my memory, were those attacks successful?

Need an attack be successful to be taken seriously?

Quite a few of the world’s nations are run by “ruthless dictators� and groups that oppose the US. Shall we invade them all?

Cuba is a dictatorship and a <shudder in fear> communist nation. Shall we invade?

Again, you don't seem to understand.

Perhaps it is you who does not understand.

If these countries are harboring and supporting organizations that wish to kill Americans and they have already successfuly launched an attack on the largest city in America, we should retaliate.

IF a nation “harbors� and “supports� organizations that wish to kill Americans� and IF they attack the LARGEST US city, the US should retaliate. Right?

What if the attack is against the SECOND largest US city – or the tenth largest?

Advanced weaponry????? BOX CUTTERS????? IEDs??????

More like AK-47's, Rocket Propelled Grenades, C4's, TNT. Do you not consider IEDs to be a threat?

Those do NOT constitute “advanced weaponry� The AK-47 is 1947 technology (but very successful). The RPG is WWII technology (developed from even earlier weapons). C-4 is 1960s technology based upon 19th Century technology. TNT is 1860s technology.

According to this, anything beyond swords, long bows and muskets must be “advanced weaponry�.

Do you check the accuracy of ANYTHING you say?

Yes, we should regard box cutters and IEDs as a “huge threat� to the US.

Again, I see IED's as a threat as they have killed generally around 12 people in one blast.

Kindly provide evidence that IEDs are a “huge threat� to the US nation.

Note: IMPROVISED explosive devices. “Advanced weaponry�? “Huge threat�?

And the threat is their ability to "terrorize" and "hijak" things like PLANES that they use to CRASH into buldings in America.

Were IED’s used in the WTC event? By whom?

That has been done illegally by presidents – and has failed. Presidents have no power under the Constitution to declare war.

No official delcaration was declared by Congress, but a majority vote passed approving of the beginnings of the war.

Thank you. The constitution specifies that Congress (not the Executive Branch) has the power to DECLARE war.

What entitles you to decide what is right for others?

Does that entitlement come with citizenship in the US or with Christian worship practices or personal opinion?

EXACTLY, I cannot decide WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OTHERS.

Thank you. That is my point.

Thats what a Democratic society does, it allows PEOPLE TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEMSELVES.

For many centuries people have chosen to live under monarchies and some still do (apparently contentedly). Democratic processes are not required. Should citizens of those nations be forced to “vote� in favor or opposition to monarchy – to meet your requirement?

It is my opinion that it is up to the citizens of a nation to have a democratic form of government – and NOT the business of other nations to insist that they do so.

Do propose that other nations do NOT have the right to develop their preferred form of government?

I would condemn nations that violate BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS such as North Korea, China, and Soviet Russia. Now, if the citizens of a said country want to live in a communist state ruled by a few elites, by all means, if they want that let them be.

Thank you. That is my point.

If they have NO SAY about the form of government they wish to have because their voices are OPPRESSED AND SMOTHERD, then a democracy would allow them to choose for themselves.

The citizens of a nation are the ones to be concerned about their form of government. Outsiders, you included, are not entitled to decide what is best for those citizens.

Are you honestly NOT aware that the US has threatened Iran and North Korea?

Threaten, assuming this is about war, I assume you may to threaten with war.

I have made no such assertion. Why would you ASSume so?

NO we have not. Please prove me wrong by quoting a president that uses war as a coercive tool. We have applied sanctions to Iran in order to prevent ehm from attaing Nukes, do you equate economic sanctions with threats of war?

The US government has repeatedly said, “all options are on the table� (or words to that effect). “All options� INCLUDES war, bombardment, atomic attack – does it not?

Perhaps you are also not aware that the US has threatened Eritrea – a nation of 5 million people (a “real threat� to the US) http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/17/us-t ... e-eritrea/

So, a writer cites the daily telegraph who cites an unammed Obama source as saying "Eritrea has chosen the wrong path," said a source. "There are consequences for working with al-Shabaab when President Obama cannot afford to look weak on terrorism by not retaliating if there is an attack on the homeland."

Maybe its me, but I see no "WAR" word in there.

I see. Threat ONLY means WAR in your mind???? If a nation threatens to fly planes into US buildings, or threaten US interests abroad, that does that NOT constitute a threat?

And it came from an UNAMED obama source and is being reported by a BIAS newspaper that delcares itself to be an anti war group. An unnamed obama source the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENT has threatening war with a nation.

Again, is the only threat recognized by your argument a threat of war?

Would a threat to starve a nation into submission with naval blockade constitute a threat against its national interests?

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons?

If a dictator denies the Holocaust, shall we attack his nation?

No, I am not aware that North Korea has Nukes. Please give an objective source that states for a fact that North Korea has developed nukes without any speculation.

Do you make it a point to be wrong in what you say? Repeated errors ruin credibility.

In a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

North Korea has conducted two nuclear weapon tests, and is believed to have enough fissile material for approximately 10 weapons. The first test came on 9 October 2006, at 10:35AM (local time) at Mount Mant'ap near P'unggye-ri, Kilchu-kun, North Hamgyong Province.

On 25 May 2009, North Korea conducted its second nuclear test. North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) announced that Pyongyang had carried out the nuclear test, and that it "was safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control." Initial estimates from the U.S. government showed the test causing seismic activity equivalent to a magnitude of 4.7 on the Richter Scale and located close to the site of the first nuclear test in 2006.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... index.html

Also see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34256.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

Di I suggest we attack a country because the dictator denies the holocaust, or was I listing that as a fact about the dictator to show his hatred of Israel and of the Jews?

I have no idea why you mention holocaust denial in reasons for attacking a nation. In my opinion that would be totally irrational as a reason to attack anyone.

If another nation (say China, Russia or North Korea) regards the US as an “eminent threat�, are they justified in attacking the US?

Well, considering you were emphasizing me using "IF" when it came to the possibility of a soul, I would like to emphaize you use of "IF." You certainly are using many fake, hypothetical situations to make your point, I would think that if your claims had any veracity, they would be able to hold using real life situation instead of "IF" situations.

I can understand that you would choose to duck the question.

And, do you suggest that if a group in America hijaked planes and flew them into the Duma building of Russia, that the United States would not try to capture and destroy the organization headquarted in America.

Where did that come from? I make no such suggestion.

Should the US start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war?

Never suggested this, and no.

If the US attacks a nuclear-armed nation it invites retaliation with nuclear weapons.

Should the US risk a nuclear war by threatening, provoking or attacking nuclear armed nations?

If those nuclear armed nations have made statements like Israel must be destroyed, then every possible method to deter their achievement of muclear weaponry should be used.

What should be done with nations that already possess nuclear weapons (and state that one of our allies “must be destroyed� (perhaps North Korea vs. South Korea)?

Some “world power houses� (and nuclear armed nations) are ALREADY enemies of the US (or strongly opposed to US actions and policies), perhaps including Russia and China (unless they are to be considered friendly nations or allies).

What is Russia and China opposed to of the US?

Are you honestly unaware of the opposition of Russia and China to US policies and actions? Do you not know that Russia bitterly opposes US missile systems in Eastern Europe? Do you not know that China is bitterly opposed to the US stance regarding Taiwan – for starters?

They certainly are not our best allies, but they are intelligent and realize that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to a destruction of this planet and their countries.

Yes, the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy has deterred atomic-armed nations from attacking one another. The only nation that has used atomic weapons against the citizens and cities of another nation is the US – against an enemy that did not have such weapons with which to retaliate.

Do either of those nations possess greater ability to harm the US than Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea or Iran?

Certainly, but have they already launched a successful strike aganist us? Have the terrorist groups in the Middle East already launched a successful strike aganist us? YES

After eight years of war and thousands of US soldiers killed and destruction of the infrastructure and government of two nations, the terrorist groups in the Middle East are still functioning – and evidently fighting the US to a standstill or stalemate – similar in some ways to Vietnam.

You are correct in stating that we ARE creating enemies identified as “anti-western terrorists�. Thank you. That is exactly my point.

Yes, and had we not invaded and let them go about with their indoctrination and field training do you think they would be more appreciative of us?

“Appreciative� isn’t the issue – creation of additional enemies IS the issue I raised.

You are welcome to feel afraid that “terrorists� threaten your life. That is an example of the fear and insecurity I mention.

Yes, and this was the pre 9/11 mentality that lead to 9/11 (thinking that the US was untouchable). Considering that thouands died in the WTC, and those poor passengers had to be subject to the terrorists in the planes, I am afraid.

I agree. You are afraid. You deal from a position of fear.

But, we shouldn't be afraid, we should just continue our lives as if it nevered occured, isn't that right?

I am not afraid. I have continued my life without fear. What, exactly, should make me afraid?

I stand by my statement that a strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by “pipsqueaks� – and that attack of such pipsqueak nations that posed no threat to the US is evidence of LACK of strength and confidence.

Yes, do you consider 9/11 to be a "pip squeak" attack? Do you consider people capable of orchaestraing 9/11 to be "pipsqueaks?"

Yes – on a world scale – considering nations that have tremendous destructive potential. One atomic missile could kill tens or hundreds of thousands. A “suitcase nuke� or an atomic device delivered by a cargo ship could do nearly as much. By comparison, 9/11 is far less destructive.

I am not persuaded by arguments involving the foreign policies of Russia and France. Are you offering them as examples of strength and confidence or weakness and lack of confidence?

Well, if you are going to regard the United States as "insecure" by what standard to you make this conclusion.

By my own personal standards – as I state.

Do you compare the actions of the US to other nations and make this conclusion? If you did, you would take into account what I list above, right?

I do not – therefore the “if� question is meaningless.

It is my opinion that the US has lost a great deal of respect among the world’s nations and citizens by invading nations that obviously posed no threat to its national security (and is being fought to a stalemate or a loss by a “rag-tag group of insurgents�). There appear to be similarities between the current wars and the Vietnam war – a national disgrace in my opinion.

Do you regard the soldiers that served in Vietnam to be "a national disgrace?" [/quote]
Did you see anything in what I said that implied that the soldiers who served in Vietnam were a “national disgrace�? Or are you trying for flame bait?

I CLEARLY stated that the WAR in Vietnam and the current WARS are a national disgrace – and clearly identified that as my opinion. I said nothing about military personnel. Can you not debate honorably?

Quite a suggestive word you use...... And again, we are at war with no nation, we are working WITH nations to achieve a common goal of eliminating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

That is NOT “suggestive� – I clearly state that I regard those wars as a national disgrace.

Do you regard those two groups as a threat?

I consider those two groups as a minor threat to US as a nation. They have the ability to produce FEAR (such as you evidence). Some nations possess real ability to do massive damage. Those I consider a major threat.

And do you know why we los tin Vietnam?

I think there were many reasons for that defeat – beginning with the fake “Gulf of Tonkin� non-incident.

Was it because it was a stalemate?

That war was not a stalemate – it was a dead loss – a defeat.

Or was it because of public opinion, and people with your views who protested and rioted in the streets, and then these anti war protestors have the nerve to shun and demean our soldiers who fought there.

Evidently the people “with my views� were numerous enough and influential enough to bring that abomination to a close.

The only similarities between this war and the Vietnam war is that there is an active group of Americans who wish for us to fail and exist.

The similarity I see is that the US had no business being involved, the US became involved under false pretenses, and the US lost (or is losing) and withdrew (or will withdraw) in disgrace – in my opinion. It appears to me as though public opinion eventually turns against irrational wars. Perhaps the nation would be wise to follow the Constitution and make war (take military action) ONLY if declared by Congress – and only in legitimate self-defense.

It is noteworthy that the US constitutes 5% of the world population. It is not wise, in my opinion, to attempt to determine how the other 95% shall live and conduct their affairs or govern themselves. Nor is it wise, in my opinion, to attempt to coerce or purchase “friendship�.

Most certainly isn't wise. Have we tried to determine how the 95% of the world should live and conduct their internal affairs?

Are you not aware that the US has meddled in the affairs of many, if not most, of the world’s nations?

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

I would regard any war as "mora"l if its precept abided by the points of the "Just War Theory."

Perhaps you would like to explain that to readers.

2) Is it a wise move for the US to spend one Trillion dollars of borrowed money to pursue the current wars?

Considering that the money is being put forth to defend America, I see not problem with it.

That might be true if there was a clear and present danger to the US homeland. However, Iraq had no ability to invade or attack the US and Afghanistan has even less ability to do so. Where is the danger you so fear?

As the primary role of the governemnt is to maintain an armed militia and provide for th safety of its citizens.

I would agree if there was an actual danger – not simply fear.

I would regard it as unwise when people borrow trillions of dollars to to pay for pork barrel spending projects (2009 Stimulus Bill), such as cleaning Nancy Pelosi's precious san francisco lake and renovating several federal agency buldings.

Weapons manufacturers and contractors appreciate your support.

But anyways, theres my rebuttal, sorry it I seemed to be yelling or speaking uncivilly, I tend to be very passionate about these sorts of issues.

Passion is no substitute for reasoning based on evidence. Assumptions, assertions and emotional appeals have no place in honorable debate.

[McCulloch]

Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists

I am astonished. When people become things they become dispensable - and any atrocity can be justified. Those terrorists are people. You do not understand what makes a person commit a terrorist act, but I suspect you are getting dangerously close to that understanding by the statements you have been making. You are becoming your enemy's mirror.

War is a blunt instrument. The complex problems that gave rise to anti-American terrorism are not going to be solved by war.

[Goat]

The director of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired sheihk 100,000 dollars a few months before the 911 attack.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html

So a bunch of induendo's based on newspaper articles in europe in 2001 lead to this vast conspiracy that the U.S. government was behind it?

You got to be joking me that you consider that 'evidence'.

why should we not consider this evidence?

1) The source is vague at best
2) The information is mainly innuendo, and hard on facts.
3) There are no specific references, and things have to be 'assumed'

why dont you check out the sources before you denounce the claim? not a true skeptic are we?

[1] Peter Dale Scott, "The CIA's Secret Powers: Afghanistan, 9/11, and America's Most Dangerous Enemy." Critical Asian Studies, 35:2 (2003), 233-258.

[2] Cf. Griffin, 109-10. The investigators were later identified as the FBI (Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01, CNN, 10/28/01, Times [London], 11/16/01).

[3] E.g. Newsweek, 3/13/02: US officials suspect "that Sheikh has been a `protected asset,' of Pakistan's shadowy spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI." The story was enhanced by Indian intelligence sources with a more sensational claim: that Saeed Sheikh had wired the money to Atta at the direction of Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time (Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01). Indian sources later downplayed this anti-Pakistani allegation by suggesting that the money came instead from a ransom paid through a `hawala' channel to another terrorist, Aftab Ansari in Dubai, when the Kolkata businessman was kidnapped in July 2001 (The Hindu, 2/13/02).

[4] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/3/02: "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA. The theory is that with such intense pressure to locate bin Laden, Saeed Sheikh was bought and paid for." The twisted story of Saeed Sheikh in the US press has been documented by Paul Thompson in his excellent time-line of 9/11 events: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essa ... aeedsheikh.

[5] London Sunday Times, 4/21.02; London Daily Telegraph, 7/16/02.

[6] CNN, 10/1/01: "As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta." Subsequent developments lent weight to the Pakistani connection, such as the arrest of Atta's alleged controls, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in Pakistan.

[7] Newsday, 10/3/01: "Mustafa Ahmad... left the emirates for Pakistan on the day of the attacks." Cf. New York Times, 10/15/01: "A man thought to be one of the financial chiefs for Mr. bin Laden, Shaykh Said... flew to Karachi, Pakistan."

[8] Report, 436.

[9] Report, 251.

[10] Cf. e.g. MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_gl ... ht_uae.htm

Yes, you are totally and utterly taking vague references, and making a huge conspiracy theory out of it. You take things out of context, and then blow it up to say 'Bush did it'.

Utter nonsense ..

You got one author that is making money out of being paranoid, .. and whose credibility is nothing. He blames the US government for everything, so of course he will jump on the conspiracy bandwagon.
[
Then you take a random fact (the investigators where FBI), which is what they would be doing if they were doing their job, investigating, and twist that around.

And so on and so on.

[scourge99]

Considering Saudi Arabia has a stable government with a King also committed to fighting the war on terror, we have no need to invade.

Others might say that Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the US.

We have a symbiotic relationship of sorts.
The US trades weapons, political support, and a tolerance for civil rights abuse by the country for oil, friendship, a monopoly on Saudi loyalty, a military base and foothold in one of the most volatile places in the globe that is, for one thing, vital to our country's economy and stability.

Places like Iraq were ruled by the tyrannical Sadam Hussein who spoke out in favor of the 9/11 conspirators, not only was that nation harboring islamic jihadists, but they also supported their cause.

Do you recommend attacking every nation that is governed by a “tyrant� and/or one who speaks against the US or supports groups opposed to the US (called “terrorists� by some)?

No. If this were the case we would have more incursions into African and east Asian nations. Our lack of involvement in some of the major atrocities of the world demonstrates that the US will not and cannot be the "world police" by itself. However, in locations that are deemed "interests" either present or future, there is much more active involvement. Hence why we see our troops in Iraq and not in Somlia or Darfur.

Kindly show the actual risk posed to the US by Iraq and Afghanistan – enough to produce FEAR to justify invading another nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
The overarching "political" reasons were stated within the Iraq War resolution. However, these stated reasons are "dumbed down". Some can be expanded greatly from both political and military standpoints.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE (present tense) known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Do you recommend that the US “help� governments of all nations (against their will if necessary) if they cannot “successfully eliminate the terrorists� (by whose standards)?

That is a far too complex a question to give a simple yes or no.

For example, it would be foolish to invade China and risk both economic and military conflict.

Each situation is unique and a resolution must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I stand by my statement that a strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by “pipsqueaks� – and that attack of such pipsqueak nations that posed no threat to the US is evidence of LACK of strength and confidence.

It is my opinion that the US has lost a great deal of respect among the world’s nations and citizens by invading nations that obviously posed no threat to its national security (and is being fought to a stalemate or a loss by a “rag-tag group of insurgents�). There appear to be similarities between the current wars and the Vietnam war – a national disgrace in my opinion.

It is noteworthy that the US constitutes 5% of the world population. It is not wise, in my opinion, to attempt to determine how the other 95% shall live and conduct their affairs or govern themselves. Nor is it wise, in my opinion, to attempt to coerce or purchase “friendship�.

So what have we accomplished (other than making additional enemies)?

You mean other than remove a tyrant and a dictator who did everything in his power to cause mayhem and havoc to both our country and the Middle east?

I suppose you would rather have had us "teamup" with Saddam. And surely pulling Saddam Hussein up under our wing after the Gulf War and making him a bed mate would have served us better in the Middle East than what we did? 100 percent of Iraqi oil going to America? The rest of the Middle East shaking in the shadow of a well funded and equipped "American" dictator?

Or perhaps we should have just put more sanctions on him? After all we know how well that works in places like N Korea and Cuba. The people starve and die by the millions while the dictators remain and squeeze and ever tighter grasp on power. Do you know what happens to the Kurds when we FAILED to remove Saddam the first go around? Do you know what WE did because of our FAILURE to remove Saddam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort

"Post 9/11, Osama Bin Laden would state that one his justifications was "the starving children of Iraq" and the "presence of troops" in Saudi Arabia. Both of which would not exist were our UN mission in the desert not to maintain the dictator. But we couldn't just leave him to his own devices either could we?

We talk about our Cold War sins today as if our mission with Iraq wasn't of Cold War prescription. And you talk about or obligations as if Iraq was something to overlook. Preventing future 9/11s means dealing with the entire region. People should be able to have an opinioin on whether or not Iraq was something we should have done, but no one should be able to deny our obligations and responsibilities here. We are not France, who overwhelmingly gave more weapons support to Hussein and continued to benefit from his existence all the way up to 2003."

It is a huge threat to the United States and American lives when you have these people calling for the dimise of the west and the destruction of Israel.

Yes, we should regard box cutters and IEDs as a “huge threat� to the US.

Hyperbole much?

Saddam posed a clear and direct threat to America and its interests abroad. In posed a threat to Saudi Arabia, a primary supplier and ally within the M.E.. He posed a threat with his willful flaunting of inspections and active development of WMDs. His failure to abide by toothless UN resolutions and mandates established as terms of surrender following the Gulf War and after (he performed flyovers of Jordanian and Saudi airspace as late as 2002). His increasing activity and support of terrorists at time when terrorist attacks are increasing in number and lethality.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6411QA20100502

But lets not just view this simply as a "threat" to the US. Its convenient to nay-sayers to turn a blind eye to to thousands Saddam slaughtered prior and post Gulf War I. To also ignore the thousands who starved.

The "containment" policy of Bush Senior was a hold over from the cold war era. It failed to account for the change in world affairs following the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Victory used to be when your enemy was destroyed. We didn't destroy our enemy. We merely sapped them of their will to fight in that instance and sent the most ruthless of them home to slaughter under our protection."

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons?

Its doubtful whether the N Koreans have weaponized bombs. The first "test explosion" appears to be small or mostly a failure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6040494.stm

From what I read, building a bomb is one thing. Weaponizing it is apparently just as difficult as building it.

I do not doubt that they can achieve it. But the question is at what cost and by what time?

Questions for debate:

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

In contrast to the alternatives, yes, the war in iraq was the optimal choice. It is both justified and moral.

[WinePusher]

Switcheroo – you claimed that “we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�.

When I show that you are DEAD WRONG – that we ARE killing innocent people (non-terrorists – including women, children and old people), you try to change the subject. Shame on you for using dishonorable tactics.

Is your argument so weak that it requires such tactics?

Please, before you condemn and criticize others as dishonorable (as you so often do) you should first not ask a loaded question "If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people, would that nation not have created / inspired thousands of enemies among the US population and US allies who would strike back however possible?" Now, I answered the question assuming the basis of intention, our intention is to kill the terrorists, not civilians, which was my answer. So, this diversion to condemn me all stemmed from a loaded question posed by you. I will attempt to ask you my original question and hope you will not divert, Do You Believe that our intent is to murer civilians, is there any objective evidence?

Does that explain ALL or even most civilian deaths? If you think so, kindly provide documentation.

This is more of a logical deduction. We do have civilian deaths, and I see only 2 possible explanations. The terrorists use them as shields, as they can blend in with the crowds, our troops intentionally kill them, or the civilian casualties. If you have another explanation, please add it. From these two options, I rule out the intentional killing of civilians by our troops for obvious reasons, and we know guerrila warfare is implemented by unorthodox militaries, such as the Viet Cong. If you think that explanation fits, please give us some evidence that can support this.

Did you see “intentionally killing innocents� in anything I said – or are you making that up as a straw man?

Considering you did not specify anything I was asking so you would clarify. Do you care to do so and finally state your opinion on the matter of civilian casualties.

Some US military personnel (and hired contractors) HAVE been convicted of deliberately killing Iraqis. Do you deny that has happened?

Would you have me take your WORD on this. Or can you Provide an objective SOURCE that lists these soldiers, and their specific charges. Now, I can think of some cases, but they may not be the ones you are referring to as you have given no documentation; but I contend that these actions are rephrehensible and these soldiers face justice. I do not believe their actions are representative of the entire United States Army.

You seem to make a lot of mistakes – always in favor of the “argument� you try to present.

Would you rather have me deny the mistake? I mis-read the source, it was an error on my part, I apologize.

Was it you who also claimed that “water turns into wine every day� when trying to “explain� a bible tale?

Are you trying to immpute a quote to me without ANY DOCUMENTATION. You are the who needs documentation for everything, yet you seem to exempt yourself from this. Please post the link to the quote where I said this so we can examine it.

It seems inconsistent that a nation that prides itself on “justice for all� and “right to a speedy trial� would imprison someone four years claiming “not yet know where to hold his trial�.

Obviously you must know all about the situation surrounding his case and trial to make a comment like that.

There is evidence that torture was conducted at Guantanamo Bay prison – and a suggestion that it was applied to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Does that cast any doubt upon a confession?

Can you present this evidence and present a convincing argument that torture played any part in KSM's confesion?

I do not accept -- nor doubt -- the involvement of Al-Qaeda because I am not confident that I have enough truthful information on which to base a decision.

Do you have a source of information that you can certify as being truthful?

This may be another one of those moments when you ask for documentation of the most obvious things, similar to the time you asked for documentation that Empty Nest SYNDROME was abnormal.

The plot also called for hijacking and blowing up 12 airliners in Southeast Asia, but AL QAEDA LEADEROsama bin Laden scrapped that part of the plan because it was too difficult to coordinate operations on two continents

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... ommission/ You will see that the 9/11 commission and CNN is much more objective than that other source you gave me.

Is willingness to “fight a war on terrorism� the ONLY reason that Saudi Arabia might be considered a puppet of the US? Could the presence of US bases on their soil be considered?

Is this somemore of your "IF" theories? I have no idea as I am not claiming such a thing. You refered to the presense of US bases to be the reason why Saudi arabia might be considered a puppet of the United States. DOCUMENT IT.

I recommend "attacking" those countries that harbor and support the terrorists who attack us.

That recommendation might involve the US in quite a few wars. How many wars do you think the US should conduct at one time?

Why would that might involve the US in quite a few wars, can you give some countries that harbor and support terrorists who attack us? Considering the US fought a two front war in WWII, the US can handle a two front war.

Declaring the war a “success� is comparable to declaring victory in a debate – presumptuous and inappropriate. I regard the Iraq war as about as “successful� as the Vietnam war.

Well, if it is not a success as Vietnam was, do you care to explain Joe Bidens statement. Or you can not comment if you wish, as you made mention about Biden.

I do not disagree PROVIDE that there is a CLEAR and PRESNT danger directly to the US. That does NOT include invented or imagined “danger� that cannot be fairly, honestly and openly presented to Congress – and a declaration of war by Congress.

What do you regard the Under Wear Bomber and the Time Square Bomber as? Are they not CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS? The under Wear Bomber managed to get on a plane with the bomb, only do to his own incompetance did he fail, not because of our extra security. Did you not regard the terrorists who destroyed the WTC as clear and present dangers?

There were no terrorist attacks on US soil PRIOR to 1980. What wars account for that “success�?

What bearing does that have on the CURRENT US WARS. Your titled your thread CURRENT US WARS, not past WARS. If you would like to discuss past wars, CREATE ANOTHER THREAD, a long time forum member such as you should be familiar with rule # 4.

I credit the Bush Administration's anti terrorism policies and the middle eastern occupation. Thus, the outcome of these wars is beneficial as there have been no foreign assults on America.

Of course you do.

Do you think un productive one liners strengthen your argument? Can you attribute the lack of attacks in 8 years to another outlet? Can you please present your opinion, if you have one, on this so we can discuss it, other than one liners.

I am not privy to information at the level necessary to make such decisions, and neither are you.

We do know what happened once we invaded, right? As we have witnessed the outcomes, no terrorist attacks in 8 years. What do you attribute this to. I attribute it to Bush's policies. You did not respond to it, just posted an un productive one liner.

Based upon what information has been made available, I would NOT have recommended attacking nations that were not directly involved. I would NOT have recommended invading Iraq on the basis of questionable or false “intelligence� concerning WMDs. I would NOT have recommended invading Iraq “to free people from a dictator�. I would not have recommended making war on Afghanistan based on claims of “supporting terrorism�.

Can you show in any way how Bush could have knew the intelligencewas false? Do you see something that Bush didn't?

I WOULD have recommended demonstrating to the other 95% of the world’s population that the US is a nation of LAW – not emotion. I would have recommended that the perpetrators and those involved be brought to justice LEGALLY.

Do you think that Bin Laden is a perpertrator? Should he be brought to justice? How can we bring him to justice if we do not have him in custody. In thoughts?

Evidently General McCrystal disagrees with presidential policy and conduct of the wars. Are you not aware that he openly differed with the “Commander in Chief� and was relieved of command?

Yes, an unfortunate turn of events brought about by one bad interview.......Such comments about the VP and Pres are quite innappropriate for a General's aid to make publically. Do you know what these disagreements were? McCrystal requested 40,000 troops, Obama only gave him 30,000 and it took him months to make the decision. Do you cite this incident as an attempt to prove your point?

Many of the world’s nations are actively opposed to the US – including Russia, China, Venezuela. Shall we invade them also?

Do organizations inside those countries wish for our dimise,

I have no idea – and neither do you.

Yes. But you asked me whether or not we should invade countries who oppose us. My answer would be, if they harbor and support groups that have attacked us, then we should take military action aganst them. Do you think the terrorists in the Iraq and Afganistan wish for our dimise?

In my opinion, no organizations have attacked the US “relentlessly�. However, I think that the US has encouraged attacks (by whatever means available) in retaliation for US actions abroad (i.e., in their nations).

What do you call a strike on the WTC, another attempted time square bombing and an attempted under wear bombing that took place within 8 years of eachother, if not relentless.

By engaging in wars and occupations, the US has CHOSEN to have FAR MORE of its citizens (soldiers) die than the number killed in the WTC event – and chosen to kill FAR MORE innocent civilians than died in the WEC. Evidently loss of life is not a major consideration.

What an awful thing to say that the US has CHOSEN to have its citizens die and has CHOSEN TO KILL innocents. The US CHOSE to defend itself and prevent future attacks, what you list are is trajic collateral damage. And the fact is our military and government has tried restraint in combat. I applaud Obama for establishing a medal for the demonstration of restraint in the battlefield.

For purposes of discussion, assume that a group within Russia (with or without direct government support), crashed a plane into a major US building. Would you then recommend invading Russia? Assume now, that the Russian government DID support the group. Would you then recommend that the US go to war with Russia? Or, do you favor only attacking “pipsqueak� nations that cannot retaliate militarily?

I would weigh the pros and cons, as war with Russia and the United States would most likely bring. Nuclear weapons into the fray. And such nuclear devestation would be irreversable. But if another threat were immenent and the group was sizeable, I would favor some type of military action, a blockade perhaps.....

Or, do you favor only attacking “pipsqueak� nations that cannot retaliate militarily?

I would favor attacking no nations. Now, who is it thats retaliating aganist who. Did WE LAUNCH THE FIRST STRIKE? How they retaliate if WE DID NOT LAUNCH THE FIRST STRIKE.

Do you understand that currently, in the middle east, we are not at war with in particular country?

Perhaps it would be a bit difficult to convince Iraq and Afghanistan citizens (and citizens of other world nations) that is a true statement.

Perhaps it would be, perhaps it wouldn't. Unless you give some documents to support your many hypotheticals, what basis do they have in reality?

Have you noticed that we are working proactivly with the armies of Afganistan and the Counter Insurgence in Iraq to achieve the same goal?

That is what the British might have said during the Revolution when they allied with the Torres and fought against the “insurgents�.

Yes, thats what they MIGHT have said. Another hypothetical and IF argument. Can you provide any examples, or situations in REAL LIFE that can help your case? Can you also respond to mt comment? Do you deny that we are working proactivly with the armies of Afganistan and the Counter Insurgence in Iraq to achieve the same goal?

Need an attack be successful to be taken seriously?

No, I would agree with that sentiment. However, did you notice the diaper bomber came from YEMEN? To completly seperate geographical locations.

Quite a few of the world’s nations are run by “ruthless dictators� and groups that oppose the US. Shall we invade them all?

If these countries are harboring and supporting organizations that wish to kill Americans and they have already successfuly launched an attack on the largest city in America, we should retaliate.

IF a nation “harbors� and “supports� organizations that wish to kill Americans� and IF they attack the LARGEST US city, the US should retaliate. Right?

Yes, and what I gave was not a hypothetical, like many of your examples. IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

What if the attack is against the SECOND largest US city – or the tenth largest?

Is this what your argument has been reduced to? Worthless semantics and word nitpicking. I was merely stating a fact the New York City is the largest city in America. Do you deny this? The population size of a city matters not, IMO.

Those do NOT constitute “advanced weaponry� The AK-47 is 1947 technology (but very successful). The RPG is WWII technology (developed from even earlier weapons). C-4 is 1960s technology based upon 19th Century technology. TNT is 1860s technology.

Yes, I consider this advanced weaponry for an un orthodox military. What do you think, that these people would have access to drones and stealth jets. Do you not realize that the context we are discussing this in is a group of terrorists? They have bombs and Assult Rifles, not ONLY BOX CUTTERS and IED'S as you mention. Did you leave out the weapons I mentioned purposefully, or were you oblivous to their existence in the hands of terrorists?

Do you check the accuracy of ANYTHING you say?

Another sarcastic remark that denegrates your argument. Unneccesary, unproductive, and unexpected from a veteran debater.

Again, I see IED's as a threat as they have killed generally around 12 people in one blast.

Kindly provide evidence that IEDs are a “huge threat� to the US nation.

Read what I said again. Where is the word HUGE found? Why is it in quotations, are you attempting to assign that word to me. Where DID I USE IT. I said they are a threat, not a huge one as you suggest. Was this an error on your part?

And the threat is their ability to "terrorize" and "hijak" things like PLANES that they use to CRASH into buldings in America.

Were IED’s used in the WTC event? By whom?

Did I suggest such a thing? What they had were bombs and guns on the planes. do you think a group of people could overrun a plane without the use of any weapons? Do you not think thta the capability ot hujak planes is "huge threat."

For many centuries people have chosen to live under monarchies and some still do (apparently contentedly). Democratic processes are not required. Should citizens of those nations be forced to “vote� in favor or opposition to monarchy – to meet your requirement?

I would think that that is the best way. If the citizens have not voted on the type of government in which to live under, then it has been imposed on them, not voted into pwoer by them.

Threaten, assuming this is about war, I assume you may to threaten with war.

I have made no such assertion. Why would you ASSume so?

Wll then please clarify. I assumed this because the threa has to do with the Current US Wars, have you forgotten the subject of your own thread? And what is the purpose of capitalizing the first three letters of ASSume? Do you find humor in this?

The US government has repeatedly said, “all options are on the table� (or words to that effect). “All options� INCLUDES war, bombardment, atomic attack – does it not?

Please go and listen to administration's comments prior to the Arms Treaty. You will see that what you have posted is incorrect.

Perhaps you are also not aware that the US has threatened Eritrea – a nation of 5 million people (a “real threat� to the US) http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/17/us-t ... e-eritrea/

So, a writer cites the daily telegraph who cites an unammed Obama source as saying "Eritrea has chosen the wrong path," said a source. "There are consequences for working with al-Shabaab when President Obama cannot afford to look weak on terrorism by not retaliating if there is an attack on the homeland."

Maybe its me, but I see no "WAR" word in there.

Look closely at the link you posted. You will see you are DEAD WRONG.

And it came from an UNAMED obama source and is being reported by a BIAS newspaper that delcares itself to be an anti war group. An unnamed obama source the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENT has threatening war with a nation.

Again, is the only threat recognized by your argument a threat of war?

Look at what you posted. Considering the topic is again, about WAR, I assumed they threat was war. Is their any way possible that you could have mentioned the specific threat at the beginning?

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons? If a dictator denies the Holocaust, shall we attack his nation?

No, I am not aware that North Korea has Nukes. Please give an objective source that states for a fact that North Korea has developed nukes without any speculation.

Do you make it a point to be wrong in what you say? Repeated errors ruin credibility.

Does me being unaware that North Korea have atomic weapons make me wrong?
If someone specifically said "North Korea has no nukes" they would be wrong, if someone asks for documentation of a claim because they are unaware of the topic, tha does not make them wrong. Do you see the difference?

Well, considering you were emphasizing me using "IF" when it came to the possibility of a soul, I would like to emphaize you use of "IF." You certainly are using many fake, hypothetical situations to make your point, I would think that if your claims had any veracity, they would be able to hold using real life situation instead of "IF" situations.

I can understand that you would choose to duck the question.

Were you not very critical of my use of "IF" in regards to the soul? Are you only permitted to use "IF" situations? Do you think posting numerous fake examples helps your argument, how about trying some real situations.

If the US attacks a nuclear-armed nation it invites retaliation with nuclear weapons.

Yes.

What should be done with nations that already possess nuclear weapons (and state that one of our allies “must be destroyed� (perhaps North Korea vs. South Korea)?

Maybe you could review you should review the possible policies for the cuban missile crisis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Miss ... considered

Are you honestly unaware of the opposition of Russia and China to US policies and actions? Do you not know that Russia bitterly opposes US missile systems in Eastern Europe? Do you not know that China is bitterly opposed to the US stance regarding Taiwan – for starters?

Are you not aware that the missile systems in europe are being taken out?

After eight years of war and thousands of US soldiers killed and destruction of the infrastructure and government of two nations, the terrorist groups in the Middle East are still functioning – and evidently fighting the US to a standstill or stalemate – similar in some ways to Vietnam.

Document this.

I agree. You are afraid. You deal from a position of fear.

Yes, in the same way you deal from a position of over confidence.

Well, if you are going to regard the United States as "insecure" by what standard to you make this conclusion.

By my own personal standards – as I state.

Do you consider it wise to compare eevrything to your "own personal standard?"

Do you regard the soldiers that served in Vietnam to be "a national disgrace?"

Did you see anything in what I said that implied that the soldiers who served in Vietnam were a “national disgrace�? Or are you trying for flame bait?

I CLEARLY stated that the WAR in Vietnam and the current WARS are a national disgrace – and clearly identified that as my opinion. I said nothing about military personnel. Can you not debate honorably?

I see you get very worked up over a simple question. Vietnam troops and veterans were treated very poorly by society once they returned home. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Vietnam_veteran ... o_overcome I was simply asking if you agreed with such sentiment, as you regard the war as a "national disgrace." I guess you think asking questions is debating dishonorably, I would hope you abide by your OWN PERONSL STANDARDS.

Evidently the people “with my views� were numerous enough and influential enough to bring that abomination to a close.

An abomination in your opinion. And your opinion is noted, but has no factual bearing in a debate.

I would regard any war as "moral" if its precept abided by the points of the "Just War Theory."

Perhaps you would like to explain that to readers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War_Theory

But anyways, theres my rebuttal, sorry it I seemed to be yelling or speaking uncivilly, I tend to be very passionate about these sorts of issues.

Passion is no substitute for reasoning based on evidence. Assumptions, assertions and emotional appeals have no place in honorable debate.

As when we debate any issue, both of us sometimes use flammatory and sarcastic rhetoric. I would appreciate it if both of us could be more civil with eachother, as I respect your opinions and knowledge on issues and this sarcastic tone used by both of us is unproductive.

[Zzyzx]

.

Switcheroo – you claimed that “we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�.

When I show that you are DEAD WRONG – that we ARE killing innocent people (non-terrorists – including women, children and old people), you try to change the subject. Shame on you for using dishonorable tactics.

Is your argument so weak that it requires such tactics?

Please, before you condemn and criticize others as dishonorable (as you so often do)

Correction: I recognize an attempt to switch statements and call that attempt to attention of readers. Saying, “We are not killing people . . . “ruins credibility with those who realize that people other than “terrorists� are being killed.

you should first not ask a loaded question "If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people, would that nation not have created / inspired thousands of enemies among the US population and US allies who would strike back however possible?"

It is a mistake to identify that question as “loaded�. I trust that readers recognize that as a fair question.

The only thing “unfair� about it is that an honest answer destroys your “argument� (wherein you appear to be attempting to show that the US is not making enemies by killing people in other countries).

Now, I answered the question assuming the basis of intention, our intention is to kill the terrorists, not civilians, which was my answer.

It was a mistake to ASSume “intention� and read that into my question when it was not there. If I wished to say “intention�, I would do so.

It was a mistake to say that “we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists� and you tried to backpeddle but were caught.

So, this diversion to condemn me all stemmed from a loaded question posed by you.

Correction: The diversion is your attempt to dance out of a silly statement, “We are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�.

I will attempt to ask you my original question and hope you will not divert, Do You Believe that our intent is to murer civilians, is there any objective evidence?

Of course not.

If a person is killed unintentionally, have they been killed or have they not?

Reflect upon my question, “If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people . . . . “. If those deaths were unintentional (perhaps similar to those of Iraq and Afghanistan civilians) would that be inclined to make enemies of their loved ones, family, fellow citizens?

If a man in an invaded country sees his wife, children and friends killed (deliberately or “incidentally�) by invaders hunting “terrorists�, is he likely to forgive and forget – or is he more likely to become an enemy of the invaders?

If that happened in my country, rest assured that I would become a very determined and very capable enemy of the invaders. I would do anything possible to inflict damage and pain on them and, if possible, their homeland; without regard for what happened to me in the process (and without pondering whether the deaths of my countrymen, family and friends were “intentional� or not).

Since “advanced weaponry� would not likely be available to me, I would use whatever means available (and I can fly light aircraft if that would help). I would prefer to ally with others to acquire biological, chemical or atomic devices and perhaps deliver them via cargo ship. No nation can protect all its flanks.

I would do everything in my power to claim vengeance – yes, vengeance – and I would do the maximum damage possible. Is it surprising that other people in other nations feel something similar?

Does that explain ALL or even most civilian deaths? If you think so, kindly provide documentation.

This is more of a logical deduction.

Correction: it is a mistake. You cannot document that all or even most civilian deaths are caused by “terrorists using civilians as shields� – so you are expressing an unsupported opinion (or “deduction�).

We do have civilian deaths, and I see only 2 possible explanations.

Of course you see only two possibilities – dichotomies – black and white thinking – “There are only two possibilities� (meaning those two are the only alternatives that can identified without researching the situation�).

Many people prefer to think in “either or� terms rather than considering the wide range of possibilities that actually exist in complex situations. They just identify two simple alternatives that happen to occur to them, choose one, and proceed as though others were similarly limited in their thinking.

More sophisticated and realistic thinking identifies many alternatives – and recognizes that there may be others that have not yet been identified.

Choosing the best course of action or the best decision among the many alternatives available involves recognizing more than “black and white�.

The terrorists use them as shields, as they can blend in with the crowds, our troops intentionally kill them, or the civilian casualties.

Thank you. Saying, “our troops intentionally kill them, or the civilian causalities� confirms what I said – we are killing people.

If you have another explanation, please add it.

Other explanations include that civilians are killed unintentionally / by accident / by carelessness / as “collateral damage�. A small percentage may also be killed deliberately by deranged US military or contractor personnel.

Military troops are trained to kill / maim / destroy – on the battlefield. Their training is not particularly well suited to dealing with civilians. I disagree with the policy of using them as police.

From these two options,

Yes, you recognize only two options.

I rule out the intentional killing of civilians by our troops for obvious reasons,

Kindly show readers the “obvious reasons� to rule out intentional killing of civilians by our troops (and contractors employed by the US). Show that it has not happened.

Are you honestly not aware that some US troops and contractors have been convicted of killing civilians? If not, from where do you gather information about foreign affairs and the wars?

and we know guerrila warfare is implemented by unorthodox militaries, such as the Viet Cong. If you think that explanation fits, please give us some evidence that can support this.

Yes, guerilla warfare is a tactic used by “unorthodox military� (or other groups) against a superior force. That is what is available to them. They may not be able to field “orthodox� military forces and “advanced weaponry� – so they fight with whatever means is available.

I would use guerilla and unconventional tactics if the US was invaded and its military defeated.

When exactly that was done by “resistance fighters� in France, Germany and other European nations against the German Army invaders / occupiers during WEII, those people were regarded as heroes – willing to die for their country.

Why is that any different when “resistance fighters� do EXACTLY the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it because “we are the good guys�?

Did you see “intentionally killing innocents� in anything I said – or are you making that up as a straw man?

Considering you did not specify anything I was asking so you would clarify. Do you care to do so and finally state your opinion on the matter of civilian casualties.

My position, clearly stated, is that civilians ARE being killed. Whether they are killed intentionally or not – they are still dead – they have been killed – just as I said. Do you disagree? Are unintentionally killed people dead or are they not?

Some US military personnel (and hired contractors) HAVE been convicted of deliberately killing Iraqis. Do you deny that has happened?

Would you have me take your WORD on this. Or can you Provide an objective SOURCE that lists these soldiers, and their specific charges. Now, I can think of some cases, but they may not be the ones you are referring to as you have given no documentation; but I contend that these actions are rephrehensible and these soldiers face justice. I do not believe their actions are representative of the entire United States Army.

Thank you for admitting that you know my statement is true – and you still ask for documentation.

I contend that the actions are reprehensible also – and do not regard them as representative of the entire US Army.

However, civilians ARE being killed.

This began with me asking if killing civilians would make enemies. Do you now understand that killing civilians by invading their country (or the country of sympathizers) WILL make enemies – whether done “deliberately� or not?

You seem to make a lot of mistakes – always in favor of the “argument� you try to present.

Would you rather have me deny the mistake? I mis-read the source, it was an error on my part, I apologize.

There is no need to apologize – or to deny a mistake.

Was it you who also claimed that “water turns into wine every day� when trying to “explain� a bible tale?

Are you trying to immpute a quote to me without ANY DOCUMENTATION.

Notice that I ASKED. “Impute� is defined as: to attribute accusingly : lay the responsibility or blame for sometimes falsely or unjustly.

Do you see any attributing, accusing, blaming in a simple question?

You are the who needs documentation for everything, yet you seem to exempt yourself from this. Please post the link to the quote where I said this so we can examine it.

If it was not you, a simple “no� will suffice.

Does a question require documentation? If I ask, “Are you a Catholic?� does that require that I document that you are a Catholic – or can you answer the question openly and honestly without demanding “documentation�? Does that question “accuse� you of anything or blame you for being Catholic?

It seems inconsistent that a nation that prides itself on “justice for all� and “right to a speedy trial� would imprison someone four years claiming “not yet know where to hold his trial�.

Obviously you must know all about the situation surrounding his case and trial to make a comment like that.

I know that long-term imprisonment without trial is contrary to “justice for all� and “right to a speedy trial�. What else is required to know?

Has the man been held without “speedy trial�? Is it “justice� to imprison people without a trial? Is “can’t decide where to have the trial� sufficient excuse to deny justice and a speedy trial?

There is evidence that torture was conducted at Guantanamo Bay prison – and a suggestion that it was applied to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Does that cast any doubt upon a confession?

Can you present this evidence and present a convincing argument that torture played any part in KSM's confesion?

Notice that I have made no claim to know about any torture – other than to state correctly that it is widely known to have occurred at Guantanamo Bay prison – and that KSM was imprisoned there for years.

Is torture at Guantanamo Bay prison something that is unknown to you? Does the term “water boarding� mean anything to you? Do you require documentation that it has occurred?

Do you realize that asking for documentation of that which you know is true is a very dishonorable debate tactic?

I ASK if those facts CAST DOUBT on the confession. Can you not answer the question honestly and openly?

I do not accept -- nor doubt -- the involvement of Al-Qaeda because I am not confident that I have enough truthful information on which to base a decision.

Do you have a source of information that you can certify as being truthful?

This may be another one of those moments when you ask for documentation of the most obvious things, similar to the time you asked for documentation that Empty Nest SYNDROME was abnormal.

Kindly identify truthful sources of information regarding involvement of Al-Qaeda.

I recommend "attacking" those countries that harbor and support the terrorists who attack us.

That recommendation might involve the US in quite a few wars. How many wars do you think the US should conduct at one time?

Why would that might involve the US in quite a few wars, can you give some countries that harbor and support terrorists who attack us?

I can identify the nations that the US State Department identifies on its list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism�. Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm
Libya, Iraq and North Korea have been on the list but are not currently.

Shall we attack all of them?

Considering the US fought a two front war in WWII, the US can handle a two front war.

Since the US is currently conducting two wars, does that constitute capacity?

Do you support having the US go to war with more nations at this point?

Declaring the war a “success� is comparable to declaring victory in a debate – presumptuous and inappropriate. I regard the Iraq war as about as “successful� as the Vietnam war.

Well, if it is not a success as Vietnam was, do you care to explain Joe Bidens statement. Or you can not comment if you wish, as you made mention about Biden.

I make no attempt to explain statements by politicians, bankers, attorneys, biblicists or preachers.

I do not disagree PROVIDE that there is a CLEAR and PRESNT danger directly to the US. That does NOT include invented or imagined “danger� that cannot be fairly, honestly and openly presented to Congress – and a declaration of war by Congress.

What do you regard the Under Wear Bomber and the Time Square Bomber as? Are they not CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS?

Weren’t you arguing that the wars had prevented terrorist attacks (or attempted attacks)? Has that changed?

The under Wear Bomber managed to get on a plane with the bomb, only do to his own incompetance did he fail, not because of our extra security.

Evidently, then the “security system� FAILED to protect the airplane or US interests. Thus, what has been accomplished by wars and “security�?

Did you not regard the terrorists who destroyed the WTC as clear and present dangers?

I do not disagree. Have the perpetrators / sponsors been apprehended and brought to trial?

There were no terrorist attacks on US soil PRIOR to 1980. What wars account for that “success�?

What bearing does that have on the CURRENT US WARS. Your titled your thread CURRENT US WARS, not past WARS. If you would like to discuss past wars, CREATE ANOTHER THREAD, a long time forum member such as you should be familiar with rule # 4.

If wars prevent terrorism, why was terrorism not rampant during periods of relative peace?

I contend that attacking other nations inspires the citizens and those sympathetic with them to become enemies and to retaliate. You seem to disagree.

You attempted to make a point that wars had prevented terrorist attacks. Now you acknowledge that is not true.

I credit the Bush Administration's anti terrorism policies and the middle eastern occupation. Thus, the outcome of these wars is beneficial as there have been no foreign assults on America.

Of course you do.

Do you think un productive one liners strengthen your argument? Can you attribute the lack of attacks in 8 years to another outlet?

You just mentioned two attacks within the past eight years – now you say there were none. Does that indicate difficulty reaching a conclusion?

Can you please present your opinion, if you have one, on this so we can discuss it, other than one liners.

I have presented my opinion – that invading and occupying nations that are no threat to the US provides reason for people to become enemies of the US. You seem to disagree.

I am not privy to information at the level necessary to make such decisions, and neither are you.

We do know what happened once we invaded, right?

I am not confident that I have truthful information enough to say that I “know what happened� in either invasion or occupation. I do know that no WMDs were found, that Saddam was captured and executed – but Bin Laden (the supposed mastermind of 9/11 and justification for invasion / retaliation) was not, that much of the infrastructure of Iraq and its social structure were destroyed or damaged, that thousands of non-combatant civilians were killed, that “coalition partners� pulled out their troops – and that the US has spent something like one TRILLION dollars of borrowed money in the process.

As we have witnessed the outcomes, no terrorist attacks in 8 years.

Again, you point out two such attacks (defeating your own “argument�) – and note that one was unsuccessful only due to the perpetrator’s incompetence. The attack was carried out but was unsuccessful – so how did the wars prevent terrorist attacks?

What do you attribute this to. I attribute it to Bush's policies. You did not respond to it, just posted an un productive one liner.

You belie your own position by noting two recent attacks. No help in needed from me when one destroys their own position.

Based upon what information has been made available, I would NOT have recommended attacking nations that were not directly involved. I would NOT have recommended invading Iraq on the basis of questionable or false “intelligence� concerning WMDs. I would NOT have recommended invading Iraq “to free people from a dictator�. I would not have recommended making war on Afghanistan based on claims of “supporting terrorism�.

Can you show in any way how Bush could have knew the intelligencewas false? Do you see something that Bush didn't?

Note that I said, “Based upon what information has been made available, I would NOT have recommended attacking nations that were not directly involved�. Notice that I said nothing about what Mr. Bush knew or did not know.

However, I credit the office of the President of the US with having access to factual information through a vast intelligence network.

If the intelligence agencies were unable to provide the President with accurate information, or if the President was unable to properly utilize the information provided, mistakes can be made.

If you wish to propose that Mr. Bush did not know the intelligence was false, feel free to make that case.

I WOULD have recommended demonstrating to the other 95% of the world’s population that the US is a nation of LAW – not emotion. I would have recommended that the perpetrators and those involved be brought to justice LEGALLY.

Do you think that Bin Laden is a perpertrator?

Whether I THINK Bin Laden is a perpetrator or not is of no significance. Under our Constitution a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

UNTIL that is done, he is only a suspect. I regard him as such if he is alive, which does not seem certain.

Should he be brought to justice?

If he is alive, I would favor having him stand trial in an international court of law. Do you disagree?

How can we bring him to justice if we do not have him in custody. In thoughts?

That is true for any suspect at large – they can’t be brought to court unless they can be captured. Some are never apprehended. Such is life. After the longest war in US history, such capture has not been accomplished.

Do you have another suggestion?

Evidently General McCrystal disagrees with presidential policy and conduct of the wars. Are you not aware that he openly differed with the “Commander in Chief� and was relieved of command?

Yes, an unfortunate turn of events brought about by one bad interview.......Such comments about the VP and Pres are quite innappropriate for a General's aid to make publically.

“One bad interview� may have brought the general’s comments to light; however, I doubt that was the first time he thought about such things.

Perhaps it would be prudent to look a little deeper. The general made a 66 page assessment report in which he said “The key takeaway from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate," and “U.S. and NATO forces must change their mind set from killing the enemy alone, to protecting the entire civilian population from the Taliban, Al Qeada, violent ethic extremists and internal criminals�.

U.S. Army General's Frank Assessment Begins Lenghty Debate
The Washington Post published an article on Monday, written by acclaimed reporter Bob Woodward, detailing U.S. Army General Stanley McCrystal's review of

United States and NATO operations in Afghanistan. The report included a link to download the declassified version of the report so the public could read the general's words without the filter of a reporter.

The 66-page assessment is full of background information that is critical to the General's apparent call for an increase in the number of forces, and such background makes up the backbone of his reason for making such a request.

In the commander's summary section of the report, McCrystal clearly lays out what he perceives the mission to be, namely to provide stability in that country so that it does not once again become a base from which Al Qeada can operate and plan attacks against the U.S. To achieve this single goal is not easy and the report warns that the U.S. could still fail to achieve the objective.

"The key takeaway from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate," states McCrystal on page 1-1 of the report. Later in the report he elaborates by saying that U.S. and NATO forces must change their mind set from killing the enemy alone, to protecting the entire civilian population from the Taliban, Al Qeada, violent ethic extremists and internal criminals. The change in mind set would require U.S. troops to blend in with the population, getting closer than ever before and risking immense danger by trusting local leaders who may double cross them.

The General calls for a full counter insurgency which will require more "resources" than what the NATO and U.S. forces now have. The report does not make clear how many resources, a.k.a troops, it will take to launch this Iraq-like surge, nor does it make any suggestion that more "resources" will come from other NATO nations.

His three main points, listed on page 2-2, are that the Afghan security forces must grow significantly in a short period of time, government corruption must be rooted out, the U.S. needs to regain the momentum against the Taliban and extremist fighters, and the troops in the country must be deployed in a role that defends the civilian population more than it attacks the offenders. In other words, McCrystal wants a surge to protect the civilian population and convince them that America is committed to the fight.

It is this key element of the report that forms the crux of General McCrystal's assessment of Afghanistan. He states on page 2-4, "The people of Afghanistan...are the objective." His recommendations are all aimed at winning over the hearts and minds of the Afghan civilian population, earning their trust, gaining their respect, and making them believe that America, not the Taliban will ultimately win the war. He believes the Afghan people as a whole, do not support the Taliban or insurgents.

"The insurgents wage a 'silent war' of fear, intimidation, and persuasion throughout the year...to gain control over the population," states McCrystal. His assessment indicates that if U.S. and NATO forces can protect average Afghans from this atmosphere of intimidation, they might abandon the extremists and help the U.S. gain the upper hand in the country.

In making his recommendation, the General also matches them against what he believes are the objectives of the Taliban and insurgents: "Controlling the Afghan people and breaking the coalitions will." If they achieve these goals, the insurgents will have won the war for Afghanistan.

Part of the general's recommendation on page 2-13 includes the possibility of negotiating a truce with the less extreme elements of the insurgency in return for reintegration into Afghan society.

McCrystal ends his assessment by simply stating, "Through proper resourcing, rigorous implementation, and sustained political will, this refocused strategy offers (the coalition) the best prospect for success in this important mission."

Do you know what these disagreements were? McCrystal requested 40,000 troops, Obama only gave him 30,000 and it took him months to make the decision. Do you cite this incident as an attempt to prove your point?

My point, correctly stated, was that McCrystal disagreed with present policies and suggested changes. It is far more than a simplistic thirty thousand vs. forty thousand.

Many of the world’s nations are actively opposed to the US – including Russia, China, Venezuela. Shall we invade them also?

Do organizations inside those countries wish for our dimise,

I have no idea – and neither do you.

Yes. But you asked me whether or not we should invade countries who oppose us. My answer would be, if they harbor and support groups that have attacked us, then we should take military action aganst them. Do you think the terrorists in the Iraq and Afganistan wish for our dimise?

I think that enemies / groups / terrorists in MANY nations probably “wish our demise�. I am not a mind reader, and therefore have no more valid information about that than the US claims to have had about WMDs in Iraq before invading. If you have such information, I suggest passing it on to federal officials.

I consider it irrational to recommend attacking all nations that contain or harbor such groups or individuals – and trust that readers concur.

In my opinion, no organizations have attacked the US “relentlessly�. However, I think that the US has encouraged attacks (by whatever means available) in retaliation for US actions abroad (i.e., in their nations).

What do you call a strike on the WTC, another attempted time square bombing and an attempted under wear bombing that took place within 8 years of eachother, if not relentless.

Earlier did you not claim that there had been no attacks on the US since 9/11 (when trying to defend attacking other nations)? If so, you must not have been counting attempts (to minimize the number for argument sake). Now you count attempts (to maximize the number for a different argument). Which is it?

Relentless in this application is defined as: 2. (of pace or intensity) sustained; unremitting.

Is one attack in eight years “sustained and unremitting�? Are even three attacks “sustained and unremitting�?

By engaging in wars and occupations, the US has CHOSEN to have FAR MORE of its citizens (soldiers) die than the number killed in the WTC event – and chosen to kill FAR MORE innocent civilians than died in the WEC. Evidently loss of life is not a major consideration.

What an awful thing to say that the US has CHOSEN to have its citizens die and has CHOSEN TO KILL innocents.

Was a choice made to conduct wars? During wars are soldiers and civilians killed?

The US CHOSE to defend itself

Defend itself against nations that did not attack?

Can the US defend itself against attacks by terrorist groups within nations? WTC seems to indicate otherwise – as do the more recent attempted attacks (one foiled, as you note, by the perpetrator’s incompetence – not by any security measures).

and prevent future attacks, what you list are is trajic collateral damage.

Does “collateral damage� qualify as dead people?

Remember, this part of the discussion began with my question, “If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people, would that nation not have created / inspired thousands of enemies among the US population and US allies who would strike back however possible?"

Notice that I said nothing about deliberate killing or “collateral damage� but simply asked hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US would create enemies for the invaders.

The honest and forthright answer is, “Yes, that would produce enemies for the invading nation�.

And the fact is our military and government has tried restraint in combat.

Restraint in combat is admirable – however, it does not prevent civilian deaths.

For purposes of discussion, assume that a group within Russia (with or without direct government support), crashed a plane into a major US building. Would you then recommend invading Russia? Assume now, that the Russian government DID support the group. Would you then recommend that the US go to war with Russia? Or, do you favor only attacking “pipsqueak� nations that cannot retaliate militarily?

I would weigh the pros and cons, as war with Russia and the United States would most likely bring. Nuclear weapons into the fray. And such nuclear devestation would be irreversable.

In other words, if a nation is capable of retaliation, don’t start a war even if attacked by groups from within the powerful nation. Should nations attack those nations that cannot defend themselves.

But if another threat were immenent and the group was sizeable, I would favor some type of military action, a blockade perhaps..... [/quote]
Have you noticed that the “attacks� (WTC and more recent attempts) were not “immanent� (i.e., were not known in advance or expected)? Do you propose that future “attacks� will be known in advance?

Or, do you favor only attacking “pipsqueak� nations that cannot retaliate militarily?

I would favor attacking no nations. Now, who is it thats retaliating aganist who. Did WE LAUNCH THE FIRST STRIKE? How they retaliate if WE DID NOT LAUNCH THE FIRST STRIKE.

What, EXACTLY, was the “first strike� in Iraq in 2003?

Do you understand that currently, in the middle east, we are not at war with in particular country?

Perhaps it would be a bit difficult to convince Iraq and Afghanistan citizens (and citizens of other world nations) that is a true statement.

Perhaps it would be, perhaps it wouldn't. Unless you give some documents to support your many hypotheticals, what basis do they have in reality?

I will leave it to reader discursion whether the US has made war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Need an attack be successful to be taken seriously?

No, I would agree with that sentiment. However, did you notice the diaper bomber came from YEMEN? To completly seperate geographical locations. [/quote]
Do you recommend that we attack Yemen next?

Those do NOT constitute “advanced weaponry� The AK-47 is 1947 technology (but very successful). The RPG is WWII technology (developed from even earlier weapons). C-4 is 1960s technology based upon 19th Century technology. TNT is 1860s technology.

Yes, I consider this advanced weaponry for an un orthodox military. What do you think, that these people would have access to drones and stealth jets.

No, I would expect “unorthodox� groups to have NO advanced weaponry (contrary to what you said earlier).

Do you not realize that the context we are discussing this in is a group of terrorists? They have bombs and Assult Rifles, not ONLY BOX CUTTERS and IED'S as you mention. Did you leave out the weapons I mentioned purposefully, or were you oblivous to their existence in the hands of terrorists?

Correction: I showed that the weapons you mentioned were old technology – and decidedly NOT “advanced weaponry� as you claimed.

Do you check the accuracy of ANYTHING you say?

Another sarcastic remark that denegrates your argument. Unneccesary, unproductive, and unexpected from a veteran debater. [/quote]
Anyone who states that TNT (150 year old technology) constitutes “advanced weaponry� has NOT checked the accuracy of their comments. Do you disagree?

Again, I see IED's as a threat as they have killed generally around 12 people in one blast.

Kindly provide evidence that IEDs are a “huge threat� to the US nation.

Read what I said again. Where is the word HUGE found? Why is it in quotations, are you attempting to assign that word to me. Where DID I USE IT. I said they are a threat, not a huge one as you suggest. Was this an error on your part?

Quoted in the OP:

It is a huge threat to the United States and American lives when you have these people calling for the dimise of the west and the destruction of Israel.

Did you, or did you not use the term “huge threat�.

Kindly tell readers how large (or huge, or credible) a threat IEDs pose to the United States of America.

And the threat is their ability to "terrorize" and "hijak" things like PLANES that they use to CRASH into buldings in America.

Were IED’s used in the WTC event? By whom?

Did I suggest such a thing? What they had were bombs and guns on the planes.

You know that the 9/11 hijackers had bombs and guns on the planes??????

That is new information. Kindly provide a reference to a source. Does the US government know about this?

do you think a group of people could overrun a plane without the use of any weapons?

If I recall correctly, the “official US government conclusion� is that the hijackers used box cutters to overpower four different air crews and passengers. Do you now disagree with official government findings?

I agree that the box cutter tale sounds far fetched. However, there is no reliable information available, in my opinion, regarding what happened.

Do you not think thta the capability ot hujak planes is "huge threat."

I consider that a threat – but reserve the term “huge threat� for a nuclear attack (by rocket, bomber, “suitcase nuke� or ship-borne nuke.

If one calls hijacking “huge�, what do they call a nuclear attack, “gigundo�?

For many centuries people have chosen to live under monarchies and some still do (apparently contentedly). Democratic processes are not required. Should citizens of those nations be forced to “vote� in favor or opposition to monarchy – to meet your requirement?

I would think that that is the best way.

Is “democracy at the point of a gun� (inflicted upon citizens by outsiders) “the best way�?

If the citizens have not voted on the type of government in which to live under, then it has been imposed on them, not voted into pwoer by them.
Here are a few of the world’s nations that have the monarchy form of government.

Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Which shall we start with first in imposing democracy?

The US government has repeatedly said, “all options are on the table� (or words to that effect). “All options� INCLUDES war, bombardment, atomic attack – does it not?

Please go and listen to administration's comments prior to the Arms Treaty. You will see that what you have posted is incorrect.

If you think that “all options are on the table� is NOT US government policy, kindly show what IS policy.

And what is the purpose of capitalizing the first three letters of ASSume? Do you find humor in this?

Perhaps you are unaware of a saying that relates to those who assume. If you do not know and cannot find that reference, PM and I will point you in the right direction.

Again, is the only threat recognized by your argument a threat of war?

Look at what you posted. Considering the topic is again, about WAR, I assumed they threat was war. Is their any way possible that you could have mentioned the specific threat at the beginning?

I allow people to stumble over their own terminology and assumptions.

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons? If a dictator denies the Holocaust, shall we attack his nation?

No, I am not aware that North Korea has Nukes. Please give an objective source that states for a fact that North Korea has developed nukes without any speculation.

Do you make it a point to be wrong in what you say? Repeated errors ruin credibility.

Does me being unaware that North Korea have atomic weapons make me wrong?

Perhaps one can plead ignorance rather than error.

However, that is widely decimated information, available to anyone who reads (or even watches TV). To be unaware that North Korea has exploded nuclear weapons when attempting to debate related topics is extremely naïve at the least, in my opinion.

Being unaware of such widely known facts does not increase one’s credibility – and greatly increases their chances of being wrong in what they say – as readers are aware.

If someone specifically said "North Korea has no nukes" they would be wrong, if someone asks for documentation of a claim because they are unaware of the topic, tha does not make them wrong. Do you see the difference?

Yes. Declaration of “no nukes� would be dead wrong. Being unaware is ignorance and possibly naïveté. Which do you prefer?

What should be done with nations that already possess nuclear weapons (and state that one of our allies “must be destroyed� (perhaps North Korea vs. South Korea)?

Maybe you could review you should review the possible policies for the cuban missile crisis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Miss ... considered

If you have something to say about how the Cuban Missile Crisis relates to the present discussion, spit it out. Don’t tell me to “review� the matter.

Are you honestly unaware of the opposition of Russia and China to US policies and actions? Do you not know that Russia bitterly opposes US missile systems in Eastern Europe? Do you not know that China is bitterly opposed to the US stance regarding Taiwan – for starters?

Are you not aware that the missile systems in europe are being taken out?

I am aware that the US has cancelled plans to station an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

I am NOT aware that the US has taken out missile systems from Europe. It is my understanding that the US continues to have missiles stationed in Europe.

If you have information to the contrary, kindly post for all to consider.

After eight years of war and thousands of US soldiers killed and destruction of the infrastructure and government of two nations, the terrorist groups in the Middle East are still functioning – and evidently fighting the US to a standstill or stalemate – similar in some ways to Vietnam.

Document this.

Document what – that Al-Qaeda is still functioning?

Document that the US is stalemated by “insurgents� in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I agree. You are afraid. You deal from a position of fear.

Yes, in the same way you deal from a position of over confidence.

You acknowledge dealing from a position of fear. I make no acknowledgement of “over-confidence�.

Those who are fearful may regard another person’s confidence as being “over� confident.

All my life I have encountered those who regard my attitudes as “over confident�; however, I have done what I set out to do, gone where I wished, have what I desire, retired from what I considered to be “the best job in the world� at age forty – thirty years ago.

The fearful always council me against “making waves�, being over-confident, or departing from the herd mentality. That attitude has worked for me. Perhaps living in fear works for others.

Well, if you are going to regard the United States as "insecure" by what standard to you make this conclusion.

By my own personal standards – as I state.

Do you consider it wise to compare eevrything to your "own personal standard?"

Yes I do. I read widely from diverse sources and think deeply about many matters to develop my personal standards.

Whose standards do you recommend I use?

Do you regard the soldiers that served in Vietnam to be "a national disgrace?"

Did you see anything in what I said that implied that the soldiers who served in Vietnam were a “national disgrace�? Or are you trying for flame bait?

I CLEARLY stated that the WAR in Vietnam and the current WARS are a national disgrace – and clearly identified that as my opinion. I said nothing about military personnel. Can you not debate honorably?

I see you get very worked up over a simple question.

Correction: I state my position clearly – and some choose to attempt to “read into� or misconstrue what I say.

Vietnam troops and veterans were treated very poorly by society once they returned home.

I agree. Some were my friends who served not long after I got out of the Army (101st Airborne Division – discharge 1961). Some were my students at the college. I knew of their pain from maltreatment.

HOWEVER, I place blame for that debacle on the President, bureaucrats, and “military / industrial complex� as perpetrators of that undeclared war based on the phony “Gulf of Tonkin� non-incident.

I was simply asking if you agreed with such sentiment, as you regard the war as a "national disgrace." I guess you think asking questions is debating dishonorably, I would hope you abide by your OWN PERONSL STANDARDS.

I am willing to debate in Closely Monitored Head to Head sub-forum – where no dishonor or dishonesty will be tolerated. Are you?

Evidently the people “with my views� were numerous enough and influential enough to bring that abomination to a close.

An abomination in your opinion. And your opinion is noted, but has no factual bearing in a debate.

That is correct. That is my opinion. I do not offer it as factual information in debate.

I would regard any war as "moral" if its precept abided by the points of the "Just War Theory."

Perhaps you would like to explain that to readers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War_Theory

When in doubt, quote your catechism:

The Just War theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Can you demonstrate that all of the conditions of “just war theory� have been met in the present wars?

1. Did Afghanistan and Iraq cause damage to the US that was LASTING, GRAVE and CERTAIN?

2. Had “all other means� been shown to be impractical or effective? If so, how?

3. Were there “serious prospects of success� of the wars? How is/was that “success� identified and measured?

4. Has the use of arms NOT produced “graver evils and disorders than the evil to be eliminated�?

But anyways, theres my rebuttal, sorry it I seemed to be yelling or speaking uncivilly, I tend to be very passionate about these sorts of issues.

Passion is no substitute for reasoning based on evidence. Assumptions, assertions and emotional appeals have no place in honorable debate.

As when we debate any issue, both of us sometimes use flammatory and sarcastic rhetoric. I would appreciate it if both of us could be more civil with eachother, as I respect your opinions and knowledge on issues and this sarcastic tone used by both of us is unproductive.

I grant everyone a certain amount of “respect� for merely being a human being. Beyond that, I expect them to EARN my respect. In debate that includes being truthful, accurate and honorable in what is said. Repeatedly making errors or displaying ignorance does not earn respect.

Again, I am willing to debate one-to-one in Closely Monitored Head to Head debate with emotionalism specifically prohibited. Are you?