This is faulty logic. This reasoning can be turned around on you to say what if we attacked every threat there was throughout our history, preemptively, how much higher would the body count be and then I can make an emotional appeal to the victims of those nonexistent wars. What would they think. Luckily they got to leave long, happy lives because other Presidents didn't follow that line of thinking that says attack first ask questions later.
This is faulty logic. This reasoning can be turned around on you to say what if we attacked every threat there was throughout our history, preemptively, how much higher would the body count be and then I can make an emotional appeal to the victims of those nonexistent wars. What would they think. Luckily they got to leave long, happy lives because other Presidents didn't follow that line of thinking that says attack first ask questions later.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,981
- 3,318
- 126
Your one of those convoluted fools who twists everything! Plus you have no clue concerning North and South Korea....in recent history they have NOT been one nation.
Concerning Vietnam -- The US never invaded Vietnam, it was a French colony known as French Indochina before World War II; the Japanese conquered it during World War II, and after the war the French eventually retook control of it. Ho Chi Minh and others waged a war for their independence, eventually by 1954 the French has left and the Geneva Accord was signed. Two separate countries were created, elections were suppose to be held to determine who would rule the unified government but you have to remember that the new South Vietnamese government never signed the agreement and the US which was supporting this regime never signed it either. In essence, US leaders were afraid that if Vietnam fell to communism then several over countries in Southeast Asia would fall to and they felt that they had to do everything within their power to stop the spread of communism. To make this short, we had advisers there starting with Eisenhower then the conflict escalated until we got to the point where it had been a full flung war by the time it finally ended with the Nixon administration.
You enjoy looking like an idiot? There was a South vietnam and South Korea before the U.S. became involved in either of those struggles. I guess I have to continue the history lesson.
After the French withdrew from Vietnam the country was divided. North Vietnam developed an insurgency in SV which drew the U.S. to defend it's ally. Korea was split post WW2 between governments backed by the Soviets and U.S. respectively. North Korea invaded South Korea triggering the U.S. involvement.
I love internet heros that know nothing about history and try to pretend they do, please keep on going, I can keep up the responses all day.
Regarding Iraq, there was no invasion or overt military action that precipitated the U.S. invasion.
*edit* dang you Yoda for beating me to it, good explanation on Vietnam *edit*
I think you are missing my point - But that doesn't surprise me because you seem more interested in launching insults. Regardless of when North and South split, these were internal conflicts within these nations. What attack on the U.S. did either of these countries do to not consider our actions in them a FIRST STRIKE? If you justify our actions there on the basis of protecting American interests then certainly you can use that argument in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..
Now in Iraq you say there was no overt military action. Really? Is violating of a surrender agreement by targeting our aircraft in the no fly zone not consititute a military action? Does refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs constitute a military action? Does purposely playing up the fact that you MAY have WMD's constitute a military action? I would argue that these things do.
Of course, all of this has nothing to do with my original point.. what will Obama do when talking fails? Everyone else made the argument that GWB was the only President in history to not act after first being attacked. I am saying thats not true, but honestly don't really care.
WHAT IS OBAMA DOING TO DO IF TALKING DOESN'T WORK? If he talks longer than GWB but still fails has he done anything more diplomatically than GWB's administration has done?
This again kind of illustrates my point. The U.S. acted against Vietnam because we didn't support the government that was going to run it. How is that an attack on the U.S.? And if its not, it supports my point that GWB was not the only President in history to act pre-emptively in a first strike fashion.
Missed the point? you are the one that launched down the path of history without knowing your own history. They were not internal conflicts they were two seperate governments in control of two different pieces of land, in both cases the Northern government invaded the Southern. In the case of Vietnam it wasn't a direct assault, but rather an insurgency, we sent troops to help fight off the insurgency.
Anyways, back to the main point of Iran, what do you define as "talking doesn't work" with respect to Iran. What tangible goals would you like to see accomplished with the dialogue? If it is something as vague as renounce terrorism and we "fail" to achieve that through dialogue then I do NOT support first strike. If the goal is something like don't invade Iraq and they fail to meet that goal then of course we go in to defend our ally.
If the goal is stopping a nuclear program then the situation is sticky as shit. Completely different than Iraq btw because the only evidence we had on Iraq was one informant and our own paranoia. Regarding Iran we know where their facilities are and we have concrete evidence that the rest of the world agrees with, and Iran is blatantly honest about it's pursuit of a nuclear program. I think the only clear option would be to try to incorporate them like we did with Pakistan if they actually get a nuclear program going. Obviously if they use a nuclear weapon or supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group we will have to respond.
The next twenty to thirty years are going to be very trying times with regards to nuclear proliferation. As a civilian energy source it is going to be on the rise, and as a weapon it will of course always be coveted by extremists. However, in my opinion this increased threat still does not warrant first strike actions in sovereign governments. I believe the U.S.A. is a noblier country than that, and would not want to let paranoia and chickenshit fears corrupt our ideals.
Dubai and the Saudis (who control al-Arabiya) are our "allies", so this isn't like he chose his first on Iranian TV. Speaking of the Saudi's, remember Bush inviteing Saudi's to his Crawford dude ranch for hand-in-hand walks.
Some people don't care to remember that while the World Trade Center was a burning pile of rubble, Bush appeared in a group hug with a group of Muslim leaders in Washington to pronounce that "Islam is a religion of peace"
How hard is it for some to grasp the fact that there are distinctions between Dubai, the Arabic-speaking world in general, the Muslim world in general, and Al Qaeda? Failing to grasp these distinctions is gross intellectual negligence; obscuring them intentionally is pathological stupidity. Even Bush understood that declaring war on all Muslims was suicidally wrongheaded.
Some people don't care to remember that while the World Trade Center was a burning pile of rubble, Bush appeared in a group hug with a group of Muslim leaders in Washington to pronounce that "Islam is a religion of peace"
How hard is it for some to grasp the fact that there are distinctions between Dubai, the Arabic-speaking world in general, the Muslim world in general, and Al Qaeda? Failing to grasp these distinctions is gross intellectual negligence; obscuring them intentionally is pathological stupidity. Even Bush understood that declaring war on all Muslims was suicidally wrongheaded.
What good is all this pussyfooted placation if we get attacked again? His heart may be in the right place, but our enemy isn't the "Muslim world", it's the fanatics. And as long as Israel is moneyhatted by the US none of Obama's olive branches are really worth a damn.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,299
- 36,448
- 136
Damn Clite beat me to it. Seems Fear No Evil's history sucks as much as his integrity and reasoning. I like how he backpeddles like crazy after getting schooled yet still tries to mock some "superior history skills."
Someone mouthing off about military history and Vietnam who hasn't heard of Tonkin Gulf. Which is even funnier when you realize that it's the reason most often given as justification by the wing nuts he sounds like. 'Absolutely pathetic' is right. He's not even smart enough to be a normal wing nut! :Q
I think this was a smart gesture on Obama's part, as it reinforces what he said in his inaugural speech wrt to the Arab world. Too many assh0les on both sides trying to frame this as a religious war, when it isn't.
Someone mouthing off about military history and Vietnam who hasn't heard of Tonkin Gulf. Which is even funnier when you realize that it's the reason most often given as justification by the wing nuts he sounds like. 'Absolutely pathetic' is right. He's not even smart enough to be a normal wing nut! :Q
I think this was a smart gesture on Obama's part, as it reinforces what he said in his inaugural speech wrt to the Arab world. Too many assh0les on both sides trying to frame this as a religious war, when it isn't.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Well it is "religious" for those so-called Christians and Jews who believe Israel's conquest over Palestine will lead to divine salvation, and to an extent for the Muslims who shudder to think of seeing the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock destroyed by those messianic fanatics. But yeah, all that is only a small part of what is primarily a conflict of colonization, much the same as those in the Americas and Australia before, and those conquests were also driven in part by contrived "religious" dogma as well.
What was said? Nothing new or groundbreaking that I can see.
all the info you posted is contained in the link that I provided, so am not sure why you felt a need to provide it again?
But lets look at these ground shaking statments that send thrills and chills up your leg.
We need to use diplomacy with Iran.
What is it that you think Europe (directly) and the US (indirectly, mostly through the UN) has been doing the last six years? Do you think Obama is going to ride in there on his white horse, have a big group hug and the nasty little man that wants to destroy Isreal is going to put away his nuclear blocks? Can I interest you in some lakefront property in Death Valley?
point two-Our language
Yes, lets be very careful we don't offend any muslims.
Nothing new here, been stated by every politician and his brother, thats held office, in the last 10 years.
point 3- I'm one of you
Thats nice, since he's our president though, I think I'd rather he was one of us.
If it takes this little to excite you your expectations must be very low. Or you are easily amused.
I don't really care that he gave his first pres interview to an arab network as opposed to a network of the country he represents. I just see the same old dialouge of the last 3 presidents being regurgitated and Obama fanbois acting like its brilliant? /rant
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,299
- 36,448
- 136
I think 'conflict of culture' is a more accurate term, with perhaps the added flavor of corporatism. Many Muslims don't give a rat's ass for the fundie point of view, but are sympathetic to the struggle of their more militant kin as they disapprove of Western influences tainting their way of life. Checking out modern television these days, it's a hard thing to dismiss offhand!
Regardless, the insecurities and desires of so called christians and jews wrt to Jerusalem does not, and should not, bear any effect to America's confrontation of al Qaeda over 9/11. Israel can see to itself and is certainly capable enough to do so. Just because of number of holy roller assheads think this issue is one homogeneous struggle, doesn't make it so and certainly doesn't make it a valid argument.
I think religion is just another guise in this case, like it has been in numerous other conflicts around the world. It's easier to sell violence on behalf of a greater power, or prophetic destiny, then it is over money, prestige or fear.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I didn't mean to suggest there is validity to such messianic dogma. but rather that millions of those so-called Christians and Jews are lobbying our government to back Israel's conquest over Palestine, and sending piles of their own cash to assist it too. Again, while such "religious" beliefs isn't the primary source of this conflict, they do play a notable roll in fuelling it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter