DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> A soldier's response to criticism of war on terror
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 197, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/21/2008 10:31:11 AM · #51
Originally posted by Jac:


But the terrorists didn't come from either of the two countries that are currently invaded by your forces. Weren't the 19 hijackers mostly Saudis? Maybe with their third attempt, they'll get it right and invade a country that deserves it. But until then, there's no way in hell that anyone on this planet will convince me that Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable options to end terrorism. That is pure bull and whoever believes it is being taken for a fool.


I think you're throwing out a red herring, with your reference to the Saudis, here. The US had a choice to respond to 9-11 or do nothing other than to wait for another attack. The fact that most of the hijacker's are Saudi is less important than the fact that terrorist cell training was occurring and sanctioned by the Taliban government in Afghanistan and represented a clearly defined target. Iraq was next on the list of what posed the greatest threat to our security from terrorist activity.

The real problem you have is with the doctrine of preemption. Obviously you do not believe in it. Lucky for you you do not live in a target environment like we do. I firmly believe that preemption prevents further loss of innocent life. I also reject the notion that we somehow brought this on ourselves. It has always been fashionable for those across the Atlantic to criticize and disparage the United States - whether we are in a war or not.

10/21/2008 10:34:17 AM · #52
Originally posted by jjstager2:

Originally posted by Jac:


But the terrorists didn't come from either of the two countries that are currently invaded by your forces. Weren't the 19 hijackers mostly Saudis? Maybe with their third attempt, they'll get it right and invade a country that deserves it. But until then, there's no way in hell that anyone on this planet will convince me that Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable options to end terrorism. That is pure bull and whoever believes it is being taken for a fool.


I think you're throwing out a red herring, with your reference to the Saudis, here. The US had a choice to respond to 9-11 or do nothing other than to wait for another attack. The fact that most of the hijacker's are Saudi is less important than the fact that terrorist cell training was occurring and sanctioned by the Taliban government in Afghanistan and represented a clearly defined target. Iraq was next on the list of what posed the greatest threat to our security from terrorist activity.

The real problem you have is with the doctrine of preemption. Obviously you do not believe in it. Lucky for you you do not live in a target environment like we do. I firmly believe that preemption prevents further loss of innocent life. I also reject the notion that we somehow brought this on ourselves. It has always been fashionable for those across the Atlantic to criticize and disparage the United States - whether we are in a war or not.


US foreign policy does have some baring on what has happened in the US. More will happen if the US administration takes the attitude that their policies are never the problem. It's always easier to blame someone else. It's hard when a tragedy like 9/11 happens in your own backyard.
10/21/2008 10:41:38 AM · #53
Originally posted by jjstager2:

[quote=Jac]

The real problem you have is with the doctrine of preemption. Obviously you do not believe in it. Lucky for you you do not live in a target environment like we do. I firmly believe that preemption prevents further loss of innocent life. I also reject the notion that we somehow brought this on ourselves. It has always been fashionable for those across the Atlantic to criticize and disparage the United States - whether we are in a war or not.


So the loss of innocent life is OK when the US is inflicting it? just want to be sure... the fact of the matter is that over the year the US has used the Taliban, and Sadam when it was convienient... funding them, giving them weapons, intelegence, etc... when it wassn't convientient you've dumpped them like yesterdays news... can't imagine why people might hate our country???
10/21/2008 10:48:04 AM · #54
Originally posted by BigK:

I have a bit of a gripe with this glorified honor that is being used so easily.

Just out of curiousity, how would you (who are in favor of the late soldiers blog entry) respond to this?

Us Marine Kills Puppy

Where is this courage and honour you speak of? Does he still have it?


I'm not sure what you are asking? Did he do something wrong, (the article alludes to the possibility of the video being faked), yes.

Does it remove every shred of his humanity, and worth as a human being? As much as I love dogs, and all animals (OK, I do not love ticks or mosquitoes), I would have to answer no. I don't think he should be executed, or lose custody of his kids, or serve life in jail.

War does harden a lot of people. Fortunately most of us come back down to normal once we are home for awhile. Unfortunately some never do.

To take a brief video clip, and make a judgement one way or the other about a person's whole life, let alone the integrity of a branch of a country's military... (US or otherwise..) Seems a bit odd to me.

I cannot tell if he has courage. I do not know what the rest of his life is like. This was not a courageous act. It was a dispicable act, for which he should be punished.

Not to try to defend this guy, but here is a question for you...

If a fireman goes into burning buildings every day, and rescues people every day. And one day throws a dog off a cliff, and later that day and on the following days he continues to enter burning buildings to rescue people, did he lose all courage? Like the Marine, he did something wrong and needs to pay for his misdeed. But are all the good things he ever did and will do, wiped out forever?

I would say no, but certainly he has left a blemish on his record that cannot be erased. All too often, we are mere mortals and make bad choices.
10/21/2008 11:13:02 AM · #55
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I am concerned that our popular culture no longer champions analytical thought. Critical thinking would cause us to admit today just what an incredible blow the attack on 9-11 was to the United States. It would also require us to realize and admit that we have been spared another attack for seven straight years.


We have sacrificed the safety of our children for our own safety. The aggressive policies of the United States create hatred toward us. The First Gulf War engendered 9/11, 10 years later. I shudder to think what the Second Gulf War will bring upon us.


I'd say that 9/11 is more a product of our proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan buring the 1980's than anything else.


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!
10/21/2008 11:25:37 AM · #56
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I am concerned that our popular culture no longer champions analytical thought. Critical thinking would cause us to admit today just what an incredible blow the attack on 9-11 was to the United States. It would also require us to realize and admit that we have been spared another attack for seven straight years.


We have sacrificed the safety of our children for our own safety. The aggressive policies of the United States create hatred toward us. The First Gulf War engendered 9/11, 10 years later. I shudder to think what the Second Gulf War will bring upon us.


I'd say that 9/11 is more a product of our proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan buring the 1980's than anything else.


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


Self fulfilling prophecy...

sort of reminds me of Batman who in some way was responsible for all the villians he fights
10/21/2008 11:34:11 AM · #57
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

HOOAH!!!! This whole war is definately not in vain. We have lost a lot of good soldiers...Some of which were friends of mine. Us being over here is keeping the terrorists at bay....


But the terrorists didn't come from either of the two countries that are currently invaded by your forces. Weren't the 19 hijackers mostly Saudis? Maybe with their third attempt, they'll get it right and invade a country that deserves it. But until then, there's no way in hell that anyone on this planet will convince me that Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable options to end terrorism. That is pure bull and whoever believes it is being taken for a fool.


While it's true that the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, they were not acting on behalf of the Saudi government. Their organization, Al Qaeda, was based in Afghanistan and had set up training camps with the knowledge, consent and open cooperation of the Afghan Taliban Government.


And the Taliban Government was supported by the US when the Russians tried to take over Afghanistan.

And the US once supported Saddam Hussein.

Which way will the wind blow tomorrow?


No, the US did not support the Taliban government in the 1980's, there was no such thing at the time. When the US got involved in Afghanistan there was no effective central government, just roving bands of constantly battling warlords. The Taliban, per se, did not come into existence as an entity until sometime after the Soviet retreat and their first military action was in 1994 with the capture of Khandahar City. They did not rule the country in Afghanistan until 1996, well after the US had taken its aid money and left. The most that can be said is that some people later involved with the Taliban might have been armed by the US and trained by the Pakistanis, but your assertion that the US supported the Taliban Government is false.
10/21/2008 11:42:50 AM · #58
Originally posted by posthumous:


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


Ok.

So the US deserved the attack on 9-11?

I'm curious, what should the US have done in response to 9-11?

10/21/2008 11:44:36 AM · #59
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I am concerned that our popular culture no longer champions analytical thought. Critical thinking would cause us to admit today just what an incredible blow the attack on 9-11 was to the United States. It would also require us to realize and admit that we have been spared another attack for seven straight years.


We have sacrificed the safety of our children for our own safety. The aggressive policies of the United States create hatred toward us. The First Gulf War engendered 9/11, 10 years later. I shudder to think what the Second Gulf War will bring upon us.


I'd say that 9/11 is more a product of our proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan buring the 1980's than anything else.


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


The hatred for the West, specifically the haterd directed at the US, was really formed in what happened after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. The US made great promises while the Mujahideen were fighting the Soviets to help rebuild Afghanistan. However, once the Soviets left, the US conveniently "forgot" about all of that and took their money and went home, leaving Afghanistan broken and foundering. Those to whom promises were made did not forget those promises and became disenchanted (that's putting it mildly) with the US and the west in general. That chaos and anti-US/Western sentiment allowed the Taliban to rise to power, funded, to a large extent, by AlQaeda and Osama bin Laden.
10/21/2008 11:56:43 AM · #60
Originally posted by jjstager2:

Originally posted by posthumous:


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


Ok.

So the US deserved the attack on 9-11?

I'm curious, what should the US have done in response to 9-11?


I wouldn't say that the US "deserved" the 9/11 attack.

I will say that had the US kept its promises in Afghanistan and helped rebuild the ally in our proxy war on the Soviets, the Taliban would have likely never been able to seize power the way they did in Afghanistan, if they even came to exist at all. The same goes for Al Qaeda.

I don't really question the response to 9/11, what I do question is the conduct of the US following the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan that fed the hatred for the US and gave significant motivation for the events on 9/11.

Message edited by author 2008-10-21 12:00:03.
10/21/2008 12:19:54 PM · #61
My sympathy to the family of Specialist Stephen Fortunato.
His life and the unfortunate tradgedy of his violent death in the line of duty, will remain in their heart and memory.
10/21/2008 12:21:58 PM · #62
Originally posted by jjstager2:

I'm curious, what should the US have done in response to 9-11?

Al Queda are not a clearly defined target. Conventional warfare can be used to target a nation, but not a nebulous entity like Al Queda. The escapades in Tora Bora proved that. While the US were busy dropping daisy-cutters on the caves, Osama and Co. were making their way across the border into Pakistan. If the enemy in the 'War on Terror' were Al Queda, then the US strategy has been extremely ineffective.

This paper (for one) outlines the type of response that would be necessary against a group like Al Queda.

Originally posted by article:

Direct measures seek to uncover and engage terrorists, their activities, and their supporters. Direct measures include active efforts at detection, disruption, apprehension, interdiction, and emergency response They also include passive or routine efforts at screening and protection.

Indirect measures address those conditions that facilitate the growth, activity, and power of terrorist organizations. Indirect measures aim to contain, slow, and reduce threat generation

It could be argued that the US response to 9-11 was exactly what Al Queda were hoping for. It drew the US military directly into the Middle East, causing regional instability, which helped promote and reinforce their ideology.

10/21/2008 12:34:13 PM · #63
Originally posted by jjstager2:

Iraq was next on the list of what posed the greatest threat to our security from terrorist activity.


Was I raq ever a threat...or did they even come close to posing the second "greatest threat to our security"?

They had thin, barely existent threads to Al Qaeda and even those seemed like fabrications. Hans Blix and El-Baradei, UN weapons inspectors searched for wmd's and never found anything but some spent rockets in disrepair but had their work cut short before they finished and made a final report. I don't think the Bush administration wanted to hear the truth about WMD's.

FWIW I have a friend that bought gas (Jersey City, NJ)from the guys who bombed the WTC first, back in 1993. He chatted with them...shared stories and laughs. My friends ties to al Qeada were probably stronger than Husseins. lol

Pakistan's ALWAYS been a more serious threat and the Saudis are no angels either. Iraq was a joke by comparison but neocons entrenched in the Bush administration had a hard-on for Saddam Hussein a mile long. Plus we would have better control over their oil supply.

If Americans don't mind giving their lives for Oil, so be it but don't tell me that we went into Iraq for any reason relating to security, freedom of speech or democracy or any of that. Not while China's funding the war.

Message edited by author 2008-10-21 13:23:02.
10/21/2008 12:36:44 PM · #64
Originally posted by ambaker:

My father fought in World War II. I fought in Vietnam. My son fought in Afghanistan right after 9/11 and is in between tours in Iraq. I find it so sad that after thousands of years of "civilization", that we cannot solve our problems with out wars.


And the REALLY sad thing is, we're not "solving our problems" WITH wars either :-(

R.
10/21/2008 01:41:14 PM · #65
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I am concerned that our popular culture no longer champions analytical thought. Critical thinking would cause us to admit today just what an incredible blow the attack on 9-11 was to the United States. It would also require us to realize and admit that we have been spared another attack for seven straight years.


We have sacrificed the safety of our children for our own safety. The aggressive policies of the United States create hatred toward us. The First Gulf War engendered 9/11, 10 years later. I shudder to think what the Second Gulf War will bring upon us.


I'd say that 9/11 is more a product of our proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan buring the 1980's than anything else.


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


The hatred for the West, specifically the haterd directed at the US, was really formed in what happened after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. The US made great promises while the Mujahideen were fighting the Soviets to help rebuild Afghanistan. However, once the Soviets left, the US conveniently "forgot" about all of that and took their money and went home, leaving Afghanistan broken and foundering. Those to whom promises were made did not forget those promises and became disenchanted (that's putting it mildly) with the US and the west in general. That chaos and anti-US/Western sentiment allowed the Taliban to rise to power, funded, to a large extent, by AlQaeda and Osama bin Laden.


I think you're underestimating the importance of the permanent bases installed in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I. That's what allowed Al Qaeda to gain traction. Or that's what I read, anyway.
10/21/2008 01:44:25 PM · #66
Originally posted by jjstager2:

Originally posted by posthumous:


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


Ok.

So the US deserved the attack on 9-11?


If you hit a beehive with a stick, do you deserve to get stung? If you're allergic to bee stings, do you deserve to die? This has nothing to do with what we deserve. It has to do with intelligence (of every kind), decency, and the lack thereof.

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I'm curious, what should the US have done in response to 9-11?


I'm no expert, but I'm thinking an international policing organization would have been nice. Plus an alternative energy policy. The spirit was there. People wanted to do something.
10/21/2008 02:22:02 PM · #67
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I am concerned that our popular culture no longer champions analytical thought. Critical thinking would cause us to admit today just what an incredible blow the attack on 9-11 was to the United States. It would also require us to realize and admit that we have been spared another attack for seven straight years.


We have sacrificed the safety of our children for our own safety. The aggressive policies of the United States create hatred toward us. The First Gulf War engendered 9/11, 10 years later. I shudder to think what the Second Gulf War will bring upon us.


I'd say that 9/11 is more a product of our proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan buring the 1980's than anything else.


Good point. I'd say that our policy in Afghanistan in the 80's built up the terrorist organization and our policy in Iraq in the 90's provided them the motivation to attack us. That's one hell of a foreign policy!


The hatred for the West, specifically the haterd directed at the US, was really formed in what happened after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. The US made great promises while the Mujahideen were fighting the Soviets to help rebuild Afghanistan. However, once the Soviets left, the US conveniently "forgot" about all of that and took their money and went home, leaving Afghanistan broken and foundering. Those to whom promises were made did not forget those promises and became disenchanted (that's putting it mildly) with the US and the west in general. That chaos and anti-US/Western sentiment allowed the Taliban to rise to power, funded, to a large extent, by AlQaeda and Osama bin Laden.


I think you're underestimating the importance of the permanent bases installed in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I. That's what allowed Al Qaeda to gain traction. Or that's what I read, anyway.


Making the bases into permanent US bases was highly objectionable but the efforts during Gulf War I were generally welcomed by most in the region with the certain exception of Saddam. They felt that if Saddam were not driven from Kuwait, what was to stop him from taking over other countries in the region like Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE etc? In fact, there were many instances of Kuwaiti infants being named George Bush in honor of G.H.W. Bush.
10/21/2008 03:48:31 PM · #68
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

[quote=posthumous]
.

So the US deserved the attack on 9-11?


If you hit a beehive with a stick, do you deserve to get stung? If you're allergic to bee stings, do you deserve to die? This has nothing to do with what we deserve. It has to do with intelligence (of every kind), decency, and the lack thereof.


I feel the way we were/are angry over 9/11 and will not forget that day or forgive Al Qeada, we should easily understand any other countries right to be angry too...or even hold a grudge if we do the same type of thing that affects them. Seems logical and fair to me.

I was reading up on the Shah of Iran a few months back and revisited some info on wiki...

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

The Shah also had by Amnesty International's estimates, political prisoners numbered at 60,000 to 100,000. He killed and tortured many of them and when they wanted him held accountable, we gave him political asylum.

I am NOT a blame America first guy but if that had ever happened to us, I'm certain we would have been quite the angry nation and held a grudge for a long, long time. So how can we deny Iran those same feelings?

I am not advocating terrorism and we must defend ourselves if agressed but some compassion and understanding may go as long way, as well. We can't always play the victim here. They do have legitimate gripes.

Message edited by author 2008-10-21 15:49:42.
10/21/2008 03:57:41 PM · #69
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Why is it the US's responsibility to clean up the mess in the middle east? Because they somehow contributed to the mess?


Gotta love Canada! It's our biggest state!
10/21/2008 04:09:06 PM · #70
I'm sorry to hear that this American soldier was killed in war. However, I have trouble with any letter (blog entry) that begins with "[expletive] you" (if you think the reasons we are in Iraq are complicated) and ends with a "Love it or leave it" message.

Message edited by author 2008-10-22 10:06:23.
10/21/2008 04:23:03 PM · #71
Originally posted by posthumous:



If you hit a beehive with a stick, do you deserve to get stung? If you're allergic to bee stings, do you deserve to die? This has nothing to do with what we deserve. It has to do with intelligence (of every kind), decency, and the lack thereof.

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I'm curious, what should the US have done in response to 9-11?


I'm no expert, but I'm thinking an international policing organization would have been nice. Plus an alternative energy policy. The spirit was there. People wanted to do something.


Really? The United States is attacked for the first time ever on its native soil, 2900+ innocent citizens are killed by Al Quaeda terrorists and we are to lodge a complaint at the UN?

If you were President, this is how you would have handled it?

No wonder we see things differently!
10/21/2008 04:25:40 PM · #72
Originally posted by cpanaioti:


The soldiers being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan have to believe in the mission at least a little or they would have a hard time obeying their orders to do so.


Err unless things have changed a lot since I was in the armed forces you dont have a choice. Here is how it used to work.

1. You sign up and swear an oath to do your duty for your country

2. You train to do your job of which part of it is to stop people killing you or your comrades - i.e. you kill them first. You are trained to accept discipline - they tell you and you do it, the alternatives could be fatal.

3. You get posted - you dont get to pick the nice ones and pass on the bad ones.

4. Your political views - you dont have one, you are 'there' to do your duty (see 1.)

5. Contrary to what people think the majority of professional servicemen/women enjoy what they are doing , lest face it if you did not then why would you sign up in the first place? (THIS only applies to people who are not drafted, i.e. sign up of their own free will)

I expect 'things' have changed since I left the armed forces but the above was a true reflection of what was expected of you when you signed up.

10/21/2008 04:42:23 PM · #73
Originally posted by jjstager2:

Really? The United States is attacked for the first time ever on its native soil


Not quite: Google the War of 1812...

R.
10/21/2008 04:47:27 PM · #74
Hey don't forget this article either!

Attacks on North America during World War II
10/21/2008 05:01:27 PM · #75
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by jjstager2:

Really? The United States is attacked for the first time ever on its native soil


Not quite: Google the War of 1812...

R.


We only are allowed to remember as far back as The Depression and that's because it been in the news lately.

This is the United States Of Amnesia, after all.

Personally, I go as far back as the early 60's, in memory. No further and that's only because I have a CD compilation called Sexy Soul Oldies.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30000-34999/32767/120/679560.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30000-34999/32767/120/679560.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

The only thing I'm condemned to repeat are lyrics...not History!

Message edited by author 2008-10-21 17:02:17.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 11:22:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 11:22:06 AM EST.