Pulled the old switchero of changing the thread title

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

:thumbsup:

yea, is it me or did the photos from WTF and especially the ICON of the pentagon make me stop and think, are these guys threats? naw. Hell yea they are, lets blow em the fuk up and let the world see!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

The plain fact is they don't have anywhere near the manpower or weaponry to destroy us. They may be able to mount attacks, but they are hardly a threat to the existence of this country.

yea, but the attacks frikkin hurt. Because they won't kill us per se, doesn't mean we shouldnt go after them aggressively to make it stop. I'm going to use another analogy here. They might not have a sword big enough to kill us with a few swings, but if they can tackle us with terrorism and give us chinese water torture (constant, smaller attacks that get more and more annoying), I still say take em out.

actually a better analogy might be the driver who otherwise wouldn't be harmed by a bee, but freaked out when he got stung and drove his car into oncoming traffic. they are trying to kill us, not by stinging us, but getting us to freak out (terror) and do something irrational. Irrational would have been waiting aroudn for the UN and france.

Hmmm...would it have been irrational to let the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq doing their job and destroying weapons finish that job instead of pulling them out because we "needed" to attack since Iraq was a imminent threat?

So they are trying to get us to "freak out and do something irrational"...sort of like the knee-jerk Patriot Act we passed while we were still in shock over 9/11? Sounds like they are doing it well...

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

The plain fact is they don't have anywhere near the manpower or weaponry to destroy us. They may be able to mount attacks, but they are hardly a threat to the existence of this country.

And again, we have to look at it from a bigger perspective. How many people die in car wrecks each year ? How many from heart attacks ? ......

How many souls does Mill consume every year?

yea, lets compare the numbers of people that die per year from smoking vs. soldiers dying in Iraq.

So should we ban smoking ? Kill the CEOs of "Big Tobacco" ?

Give me a break, those people know the risks of dying and still choose to continue. You can't compare someone's choice of risking their life to smoke cigs to someone who was killed in a random attack by a radical islamic group.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D
It's funny, apparently according to TechBoyJK (who has holds the only right and true POV of course), we must be proactive in meeting threats, even though this country has made it this far without being "proactive" and attacking "possible" threats.

Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

What you are talking about? I ammended your statement >

WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were all proactive. Its just that now adays warfare is smarter so less people have to die.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

The plain fact is they don't have anywhere near the manpower or weaponry to destroy us. They may be able to mount attacks, but they are hardly a threat to the existence of this country.

And again, we have to look at it from a bigger perspective. How many people die in car wrecks each year ? How many from heart attacks ? ......

How many souls does Mill consume every year?

yea, lets compare the numbers of people that die per year from smoking vs. soldiers dying in Iraq.

So should we ban smoking ? Kill the CEOs of "Big Tobacco" ?

Give me a break, those people know the risks of dying and still choose to continue. You can't compare someone's choice of risking their life to smoke cigs to someone who was killed in a random attack by a radical islamic group.

You don't think these mission groups that go over to the middle east don't know the risks ? Same with the contractors.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D
It's funny, apparently according to TechBoyJK (who has holds the only right and true POV of course), we must be proactive in meeting threats, even though this country has made it this far without being "proactive" and attacking "possible" threats.

Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

WWII was "proactive"? IIRC we didn't want to be involved until we were attacked? Korea and Vietnam worked out well...

:roll:

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

The plain fact is they don't have anywhere near the manpower or weaponry to destroy us. They may be able to mount attacks, but they are hardly a threat to the existence of this country.

yea, but the attacks frikkin hurt. Because they won't kill us per se, doesn't mean we shouldnt go after them aggressively to make it stop. I'm going to use another analogy here. They might not have a sword big enough to kill us with a few swings, but if they can tackle us with terrorism and give us chinese water torture (constant, smaller attacks that get more and more annoying), I still say take em out.

actually a better analogy might be the driver who otherwise wouldn't be harmed by a bee, but freaked out when he got stung and drove his car into oncoming traffic. they are trying to kill us, not by stinging us, but getting us to freak out (terror) and do something irrational. Irrational would have been waiting aroudn for the UN and france.

Hmmm...would it have been irrational to let the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq doing their job and destroying weapons finish that job instead of pulling them out because we "needed" to attack since Iraq was a imminent threat?

So they are trying to get us to "freak out and do something irrational"...sort of like the knee-jerk Patriot Act we passed while we were still in shock over 9/11? Sounds like they are doing it well...

about your last paragraph, yes, they are doing it well. Thats why we need to be in Iraq to take out the most powerful bully, and show hell to the rest. I personally think it was a good idea to use Saddam as an example. Its a balance thing. Saddam made himself the best target. If we didnt take out Saddam and focused on Bin Laden, the whole time Saddam could have been helping BL, making it harder on us. Even if Saddam didn't have WMD, he talked shlt like he did. Thats his fault.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

The plain fact is they don't have anywhere near the manpower or weaponry to destroy us. They may be able to mount attacks, but they are hardly a threat to the existence of this country.

yea, but the attacks frikkin hurt. Because they won't kill us per se, doesn't mean we shouldnt go after them aggressively to make it stop. I'm going to use another analogy here. They might not have a sword big enough to kill us with a few swings, but if they can tackle us with terrorism and give us chinese water torture (constant, smaller attacks that get more and more annoying), I still say take em out.

actually a better analogy might be the driver who otherwise wouldn't be harmed by a bee, but freaked out when he got stung and drove his car into oncoming traffic. they are trying to kill us, not by stinging us, but getting us to freak out (terror) and do something irrational. Irrational would have been waiting aroudn for the UN and france.

Hmmm...would it have been irrational to let the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq doing their job and destroying weapons finish that job instead of pulling them out because we "needed" to attack since Iraq was a imminent threat?

So they are trying to get us to "freak out and do something irrational"...sort of like the knee-jerk Patriot Act we passed while we were still in shock over 9/11? Sounds like they are doing it well...

Believe me when I say that I will never agree with the patriot act, but I'd rather take action against the IMMINENT threat rather then sit around and wait for it to happen to the point where our politicians feel the need to make some laws invading our freedoms to stay in office. The patriot act is only the beginning in my opinion, because there are too many people who don't feel our country is worth protecting.

 

[Insane3D]

How was Iraq a IMMINENT threat? WMD?

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Sounds reactive to me.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Taggart
A radical Islamic terrorist group-- Al Qaeda dropped the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. They still threaten us.

Whether or not you like Bush, if you say he is the biggest threat YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND

The plain fact is they don't have anywhere near the manpower or weaponry to destroy us. They may be able to mount attacks, but they are hardly a threat to the existence of this country.

yea, but the attacks frikkin hurt. Because they won't kill us per se, doesn't mean we shouldnt go after them aggressively to make it stop. I'm going to use another analogy here. They might not have a sword big enough to kill us with a few swings, but if they can tackle us with terrorism and give us chinese water torture (constant, smaller attacks that get more and more annoying), I still say take em out.

actually a better analogy might be the driver who otherwise wouldn't be harmed by a bee, but freaked out when he got stung and drove his car into oncoming traffic. they are trying to kill us, not by stinging us, but getting us to freak out (terror) and do something irrational. Irrational would have been waiting aroudn for the UN and france.

Hmmm...would it have been irrational to let the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq doing their job and destroying weapons finish that job instead of pulling them out because we "needed" to attack since Iraq was a imminent threat?

So they are trying to get us to "freak out and do something irrational"...sort of like the knee-jerk Patriot Act we passed while we were still in shock over 9/11? Sounds like they are doing it well...

Believe me when I say that I will never agree with the patriot act, but I'd rather take action against the IMMINENT threat rather then sit around and wait for it to happen to the point where our politicians feel the need to make some laws invading our freedoms to stay in office. The patriot act is only the beginning in my opinion, because there are too many people who don't feel our country is worth protecting.

several years down the road things will surface about the patriot act, and people will begin to find ways to make it better. thats the beauty of the US. As a group, we are slower, be are slowly making things better.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

That still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't proactive. They attacked us,then we attacked them.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

timing and being proactive arent quite the same. WWII was proactive, it just took a while for us to stand up and be proactive.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Sounds reactive to me.

Very much. American's were against war until Pearl Harbor. Pro-war sentiment was growing at the time, and the government was gearing up for war, but the country was content sit it out.

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and managed to get oil elsewhere, I think the war would have been vastly different. I'd even venture to say there'd have been an Axis victory in the Eastern Hemisphere.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

timing and being proactive arent quite the same. WWII was proactive, it just took a while for us to stand up and be proactive.

Incorrect.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
How was Iraq a IMMINENT threat? WMD?

WMD, no, money to fund terrorism? yes.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

timing and being proactive arent quite the same. WWII was proactive, it just took a while for us to stand up and be proactive.

Incorrect.

please explain. nicely, so I won't be turned away from your point of view. US was proactive in the war, not getting to it.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

That still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't proactive. They attacked us,then we attacked them.

IMO that is a technicality, they were just provoking the inevitable.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D
How was Iraq a IMMINENT threat? WMD?

WMD, no, money to fund terrorism? yes.

I have some money to fund terrorism. Am I ? No.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D
How was Iraq a IMMINENT threat? WMD?

WMD, no, money to fund terrorism? yes.

Fund terrorism how? The only funding Saddam did was to give money to the families left behind from suicide bombers in Palestine. That was primarily because it was doing damage to his enemy Israel. He had no ties with AQ or other Islamic fundamentalists because he repressed Islam in his country. He was not well liked for this reason.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
[ please explain. nicely, so I won't be turned away from your point of view. US was proactive in the war, not getting to it.

It's been explained already in this post, and the history books I've read see it that way as well.